Sic Semper Tyrannis

Got Your Score Card?

"In any case, it appears that the fighting had little to do with either the Sunni-led insurgency or the sectarian bloodletting between Shiites and Sunnis in the Baghdad area. More likely, the battle stemmed from rivalries within the Shiite community, which have led to armed clashes in the past in major southern cities.

Those internal tensions may increase if the Iraqi government bows to U.S. pressure and cracks down on Shiite militias."  Reid

------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess I am just small minded but I don't find the "Ashoura" action in Kerbala to be inspiring.  These are mainline Shia mourning the death of  Hussein.  Seems like there might be some other way to mourn, but, it IS their business.

The armed force of "heretical" Shia (mostly) who intended to interrupt the ceremonial in the Shia holy cities were "outside" the consensus of the majority of Shia.

"You can't tell the players without a score card.."  Old saw, right?  It surely applied to this situation.  "Jund as-Sama'?"  New to me and I know of a lot of these little (or large) "millenarian" Muslim groups.  That's what Juan Cole calls them.  That description works for me.  If you go over to my other blog, "The Athenaeum" you will find an article that I recently wrote about varieties of Islamic belief and practice.

In that article you will find my view regarding the particular features of Islamic religion which make it a religion very prone to splitting into smaller and smaller consensus driven factions.

Now, I know that Judaism and Christianity (particularly Protestant Christianity) are also susceptible to such division.  Nevertheless, my subject here is the easy "slide" into endless division in Islam which results in the creation of active and sometimes dangerous groups such as this one.

It was interesting yesterday to watch some of the pseudo-sophisticates "reading" the news on TV try to cope with the idea of Shia on Shia violence in the context of Ashoura:

- They have been "programmed" by now into reflexive statements that Islam is a "pacifist" religion.  This does not fit that paradigm.  Therefore, stupefaction results until a talking head intervenes.

- Typically, these people are not equipped to deal with idea systems that have a great deal of power, so instinct drives them to attribute motivation for such behavior to some other, secular, or economically determined cause.

Sad.  They should go back to reporting the weather or sports.

pl

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Iraq_What_Happened.html

Military History Thread

"If Col. Lang would be willing to give us a place on his site, I thought it might give us amateur military historians a place to discuss and compare our notes about these disastrous military campaigns."

I am establishing a thread for this purpose on "The Athenaeum."  I consider an essentially academic discussion to be more appropriately placed there.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/the_athenaeum/

W. Patrick Lang

An old war "comes home."

There was a demonstration out on the National Mall yesterday.  It looked like "back to the future," complete with The Fonda, the peace symbol "thingy" and a pronounced aura of tie-died togetherness.  One could almost smell the tear gas.  This was interesting but largely irrelevant, largely, but not altogether.  The demonstration was, on balance, probably counter-productive if the objective was to modify American policy in Iraq. The "resurrection" of the highly polarizing symbols and personalities of past internal conflict is, I think, a foolish thing.  What could be more likely to alienate the majority of Americans than such a display?  Most of the people that have to be convinced of the errors of American policy in the Middle East do not like Jane Fonda.  Doesn't "moveon.org" or whomever sponsored the event, know that?

The American electorate is moving steadily to the opinion that the Bush/Vader Administration has followed a ruinous course in Iraq.  That consensus, when it is decisive in strength, will change US policy for good or ill.

Leading that shift in opinion are men who lived Vietnam, lived it in the raw, savage, sweaty war in the field or lived it then, and now, in the knowledge of their responsibility.

Hagel, Webb, John Warner, and ultimately John McCain, are examples of the men who are stricken to their core by the memory of that time and the vision of war without end that is the looming legacy of this administration.  These are the men who will lead America out of the wasteland.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/27/AR2007012701478.html

Babak on Revolution

"Col. Lang:

The "revolutionary change" that US is seeking has already happened - it is called the Islamic Revolution (in Iran).

Khomeini's amalgamation of the principles of Islam and those of Republicanism has outlined the contours of the future evolution of Muslim polities - in my opinion. Just like the French Revolution in Europe.

What USG is trying to do is "hyper-revolutionary" - it is akin to injecting a heart-attack patient with stimulants in the hope of regenerating the heart muscle.

Babak Makkinejad"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is profound.  If Babak's words were taken seriously by Bush/Vader/Blair, etc., they would constitute the basis for a real discussion with the Iranians of a possible future of shared interests and perhaps even shared values.  We have to look "past" Ahmedinejad and his Basij obsessions.  Think of him  as a PTSD case.  That's popular these days.

In the world of the Imami (12er) Shia, there are many religious scholars of various kinds.  Many are experts in jurisprudence or theology but the Ayatollah Khomeini was not that.  His basic discipline was that of philosophy (falsafa).  He was in many ways a more advanced and radical thinker than many of his Iranian countrymen.  His writings on reform in Islam, the status of women and governance are little understood in the West.  They should be studied so as to understand the world of his ideas.  pl

Situation Room - 26 January 2007

"Let's get some more now on our top story, President Bush authorizing U.S. military forces in Iraq to capture or kill Iranian agents in that country if there's intelligence showing they're planning to attack U.S. or coalition forces.

Let's get a little bit of analysis now what this means. Joining us, retired U.S. Army colonel Pat Lang, former chief of Mideast intelligence over at the Pentagon.

Pat, you know this area well. You studied it your whole life. You speak the language.

If the U.S. goes ahead, soldiers or Marines, and kill Iranians on the spot in Iraq, what are the Iranians do in retaliation?

"Quadrillage"

As I have written before, the new army counterinsurgency manual is "old wine in new bottles."  It is merely the re-packaging of the same methods of counter-insurgency which we and the French learned at great expense in the middle of the last century.  After the Vietnam War, the United States abandoned the idea of participating in further counter-insurgency campaigns and deliberately "forgot" everything we had known about this subject.  Vast quantities of  documentation were destroyed in a quest for true forgetfulness. 

We succeeded in forgetting about counter-insurgency but apparently did not succeed in eradicating the possibility of insurgency as a method of warfare.  It returned as a methodology in Iraq to the surprise of both the neocons and the US armed forces.

There is a lot of talk these days about "generations" of warfare.  Pay it no mind.  The concept of "4th Generation Warfare" is a fraud perpetrated as a marketing device by scholars of warfare for the purpose of assuring senior officers that they are not to blame for their ignorance of military history.  The various kinds of warfare (generations) have always existed on a contemporaneous basis (at the same time).

"Quadrillage?"  A French term from our earlier doctrine.  It denotes a method of dividing into "squares" a counter-insurgency terrain or population objective in order to isolate the people within while combing through the enclosed area in a search for insurgents and their supporters. 

Evidently, that is what we are going to do in Baghdad.  We are going to divide up the Sunni (initially) parts of the city, isolate them, and then use Iraqi (Shia and Kurdish) troops and police to comb through these "squares."  To make sure that this gets done we are going to put a smallish American force in each "square" as a "stiffener" and reinforcing reserve for the "Iraqis."

That means that we will have numerous small garrisons placed alone in "Indian Country" in positions that will come to be well known to insurgent reconnaissance.  These garrisons will have to be supplied in spite of IEDs, anti-aircraft ambushes and sniping.  The widely dispersed garrisons will be co-located with Iraqi security forces.  This is an inherent security problem.  Tactical reserve (QRF) forces will have to be large and highly mobile. 

Along Haifa Street on the "seam" between Sunni and Shia Baghdad recent fighting has shown the necessity of building demolition to achieve desired results.  Let us hope that the areas that will be fought in will be evacuated by civilians before this decisive battle by "Quadrillage" begins.  pl

Lebanon is Burning

What are the "sides?'

On the government "side" we have Christians, Sunni Muslims, the Druze, the French, the Americans, the Saudis and the Israelis.

On the "anti" side we have the Shia, some Christians, some Sunni Muslims, Iran and to some extent Syria.

The Lebanese are their own worst enemies.  Once again, they are cooperating with external actors in the destruction of their little country, which, unfortunately, contains within its boundaries a sizable share of the cultural patrimony of mankind.

We Americans are still pursuing our dream of revolutionary political and cultural change in the Middle East.  Our dreams have turned into nightmares thus far but our government has not given up.  They reason that failure this far must be idiosyncratic and that if only one more country can be de-stabilized from the pattern of traditional life then the whole structure of tradition will "slide" into oblivion.  From their point of view, Lebanon may be just the place to get the revolution going.

The French?  They are just "sucking up" to the Bush Administration in an effort to make themselves more acceptable in the White House.

The Saudis?  They are engaged in pursuing the defeat of what they see as a Shia/Iranian drive for power in the region.

The Syrians?  They are trying to avoid being "stepped on" by the elephants.

The Israelis?  You tell me.

In any event, Lebanon will burn if the Lebanese are as foolish as they appear to be.   pl

"The Good Shepherd" A Review

Download the_good_shepherd.doc

by Alan Farrell

Two Points

A wise man advised me this week to conintue listening to the TV Sunday newsies no matter how boring or irritating they may be.  I agree.

In carrying out that mission this week I fastened upon two points:

- The Shia politicians and militias are not stupid enough to want to "party" with the US Army in Baghdad.  They are all going to "lie low" and wait for us to "let up" in our usual display of limited attention span.  This will lead to a short term (four or five months?) appearance of "progress" in Baghdad.  That will not last indefinitely, but, in the short term, will be hailed by the Bush Administration as proof that they are going to "win."  An alternative scenario will feature massive US pressure against the Shia militias of a nature that Maliki can not endure.  That scenario will witness a quicker disintegration of the present "plan."

- Grorge Casey should not be confirmed by the senate to be Chief of Staff of the army.  Such a confirmation will confirm to the generals and would be generals that it is OK to mislead the Congress of the United States, whitewash the situation to visitors and propagandize the American people on behalf of a political faction's policy.  What about the civilians?  Right, but, I believe that soldiers are called to higher standards.  Sorry.  pl

Final Exam?

"Mr Maliki has been under heavy pressure from the US to crack down on Shia militias ever since he took power last summer and the beginning of this year is widely viewed as his last chance to demonstrate that is serious about imposing the authority of a non-sectarian state, as opposed to helping the Shia to win a sectarian civil war.

The prime minister, whose government has in the past been accused of protecting leaders of the Sadrists’ Mahdi Army militia and blocking operations in their support base of Sadr City, has recently suggested that he may have authorized more wide-ranging operations against the radical Shia movement. Two days ago, he said that over 400 Mahdi Army fighters had recently been arrested.

The prime minister may be reluctant to explicitly declare an offensive against the Mahdi Army, which many Baghdad Shia have seen as their first line of defense against Sunni militants who have targeted Shia mosques, religious ceremonies and other civilian targets for the past three years.

The Sadrists for their part say that they are under a crackdown.

One resident of Sadr City said that the movement’s rank-and-file had largely disappeared from the streets, and that the leaders believed that they were being hunted and were keeping a low profile.

The Sadrists also say that they have received instructions from Moqtada al-Sadr, the young radical cleric who at least nominally commands the movement, not to resist or provoke the Americans."  FT

------------------------------------------------------------------

"Recently?"  How recently?  Last week?  Last month? Last year? 

It is clear that Maliki understands that the Americans are now judging him in the matter of his willingness to act against Shia forces, any Shia forces.

Sadr knows that, and he has told his people to "lay low" and wait for the famously short "attention span" of the Americans to shift to something other than them.

At the same time Maliki has to agree and agree and agree with anything the American command suggests in the way of offensive action against the Shia militias.  At the same time he knows that his political position will disintegrate completely if he is seen by his own people as a "servant" of the American occupier.

This must be very difficult for him.  He says he did not want the job.  I would wager that he really feels this way now.

It appears that the arrest of this man was designed by the US as a test, a test to determine just exactly who "owns" Maliki.  There will be other tests.  His fate and the future of American engagement in Iraq will be strongly influenced by the outcome of these tests.  pl

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b42fc940-a79c-11db-b448-0000779e2340.html

Clinton Steps Forward

Senator Clinton held a press conference today on her resolves following the announcement of President's new and improved strategy on Iraq.

Bottom Line:

She intends to introduce legislation that would:

- Freeze the number of US troops in Iraq to 132,000 while providing full funding for US forces there.

- Set up "penalties" for the Iraqi government in the form of cuts in money to support their armed forces if the Iraqis do not perform to uphold their "end" of the president's new campaign plan.

- Require the president to secure Congressional approval before increasing the number of US troops in Iraq.

Senator Clinton understands that this legislation will not be enacted, but it is clear that it is her intention to "lay down a marker" on these issues, both for President Bush and herself.  She has also urged the Defense Department to increase the size of US forces in Afghanistan.  She was asked for this by commanders in Afghanistan.

At the same time, there are Senate resolutions "cooking" that:

- Would require the president to attain Congressional approval for troop increases in Iraq.

- Would require the president to get congressional approval before any armed action against Iran.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Pointless? No. No. No. Given the desperate situation in which President Bush finds himself, I find it likely that he will "double up" his "bets" in Iraq and/or Iran to retrieve his place in history.  Present surveys indicate that as things are now '43 will go down in history as one of the worst of all American presidents.  I do not believe that GWB could possible accept this and, in that context, he will "bet the ranch" to try retrieve the situation.

If he does that after ignoring such proposed resolutions, it is arguable that a case for impeachment could be made.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/opinion/17wed1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"..played like a pawn."

First among the American concerns is a Shiite-led government that has been so dogmatic in its attitude that the Americans worry that they will be frustrated in their aim of cracking down equally on Shiite and Sunni extremists, a strategy President Bush has declared central to the plan.

“We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem,” said an American military official in Baghdad involved in talks over the plan. “We are being played like a pawn.” John Burns

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here you have it...  No matter how much Bush/Cheney would like to think so, Maliki is not George Washington.  If Washington had acted like this, Virginia would have had half a dozen senators, not just two.

No.  Maliki is trying to "play" Bush/Cheney as long as he can.  after that he will move on and hope to join his old foe, Allawi, in exile, a fur-lined exile, but, nevertheless..

I understand that the vice president Adil Abd al-Mahdi is warming up in the "bull pen" for his turn on the mound.  That change of faces will keep Bush/Cheney in play for a few months while they contemplate the evidence that they will then have handed the reins to an Iranian surrogate.  Of course, Al-Mahdi will probably be quite willing to have Odierno "take out" the Mahdi Army.

One finds "progress" where one can.  (irony)  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/world/middleeast/15baghdad.html?th&emc=th

War Against the Boogey Men

After watching the Sunday newsies with clips of Bush, Cheney on camera and Hadley the functionary, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that we, Americans are chasing phantoms in the world, phantoms carefully cultivated in a surfeit of seminars and an excess of Jungian memory.

The president says that we are locked in an ideological struggle -----  OK, So what are the ideologies involved?

!- Freedom?  On our side?  That includes the Pakistanis, Saudis, Israelis, The Siniora government in Lebanon, Abu Mazen in Palestine, the Shia government of Iraq?  The Iraqi Kurds?  Turkey? Libya? Egypt? Yemen?

2- "Islamic Fascism" On the other side? Hamas, Syria, Iran, The Sunni insurgents (various), the jihadis?

This is tricky stuff.  The Saudis?  The administration's "pet" Lebanese? The "freedom" list looks more like a list of our client states than anything else.  Saudi Arabia has no consitution other that the Quran, no law except for Sharia and that of the Hanbali variety.  Pakistan is one man's life away from being a Shariah state.  Yemen?  Libya?  My God! The Israelis?  Sorry folks, but Carter is right.   From the point of view of the the Palestinians Israel/Palestine is not a free place. 

"Freedom" and "Islamic Fascism" clearly have "special" meanings here.  I say that "freedom" as the bushies use the term is code and really means westernization and "globalization" in the sense that we want to see the world "ironed out" flat so the it meets the egregious Friedman's dream of a homogeneous world.  "Islamic Fascism" means, I think, simply "Islam."  That is, Islam as it has been understod by millennia of Muslims.  That is, as an all encompassing view of the world and man's relationship to God.  "Ah, but these are not real Muslims," I can hear the outcry now.  Rubbish.  We non-Muslims can not dictate to any particular group of Muslms what Islam means to them.  We want an Islam similar in its role in life to the emasculated role that Christianity plays for most Americans in their lives?  Sorry!  We do not get to choose for them.  There wil be a reaction to what I have written here.  It will be similar to the outrage vented on me by a former congressman from the Midwest who went on and and on about the nice ladies who come to his office to tell him that Muslims are a peaceful lot.   Peaceful? Yes? Within limits.

My analysis leads me to the belief that in reality we are fighting against traditional Islam. What do I mean by that? I mean that the US government claims that it is opposing only the extreme jihadis whether Sunni or Shia, but, in fact is opposing the whole structuire of traditional Islamic life and law in the name of "universal values" which are, in fact, Western in origin. In this context "democracy," "globalization" are mere code for the goal of acculturating the Muslims in the direction of the West.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Iran and the international jihadi movement are existential threats to Israel.  They are not existential threats to the the USA.   Fight over that one.  Just think about what it would take to kill the USA.  It would take a lot, a hell of a lot.  Think about potential jihadi or Iranian capabilities.  Think about ranges, throw weights.  Think about "the unthinkable."  Undertand that the death of a city will not kill the United States. We are Israel's ally.  We are prepared to go to war for Israel.  I do not question that as policy, but if we go to war with Iran at root it will be because of the Israelis reasonable fear them as an existential threat.  pl

Iraqi Army Birthday

"The Iraqi soldiers broke into chants to commemorate the 86th anniversary of the creation of their army.

"Muhammad, Haider, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn!" shouted a group of dancing soldiers, bellowing the names of the prophet and other long-dead Islamic icons revered by Shiite Muslims.

A second later, the name of a living Shiite figure came out of the din. "Moqtada! Moqtada!" one soldier exclaimed, invoking the name of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric and leader of the Mahdi Army militia that American officials blame for many of the worst acts of violence in Baghdad.

Standing quietly in the crowd were four U.S. Army officers, there to represent the team of American soldiers advising the Iraqis. "Sounds like the Mahdi militia is in the tent," said their interpreter, Mohammed Noshi."  WAPO

-----------------------------------------------------------------

86 Years.  86 years.  Let's see... That would mean that the "New" Iraqi Army calculates its origin as having occurred in 1920.  Hmmm.

That would mean that this Iraqi Army thinks itself a continuation of all the other, earlier versions of the Iraqi National Army.  That means that these Iraqi soldiers think that Saddam's Army is their ancestor, that the Hashemite king's army is their ancestral force.  I guess that means that 2003 wasn't "the year zero" after all.  I guess that means that the army that was said by the CPA not to exist any longer still has a ghostly presence abroad in the land.

1920.  That was the year in which the British occupation government began to form a specifically Iraqi army.   In much the same way that the British created local forces in all the former Ottoman lands, the new formations were built on a foundation of former Ottoman Army officers of local birth and culture.  these professional soldiers were looking for employment after the disappearance of the Empire, and were eager to take up military service again.  They brought with them the traditions and schooling of that other, disbanded, army.  These were traditions developed throughout the 19th Century under first French and later German instructors and advisers.

Was this new army in Iraq, a Sunni Army.  Exile propaganda, neocon propaganda and "Information Operations" have portrayed it as such, implying that the only Shia Arab soldiers in the now 86 year old Iraqi Army were slave-like conscripts.  That was never true.  If it were true, these Shia soldiers would not be celebrating the 86th Birthday of their army.  Moqtada's Army soon.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011202217.html

Wolfowitz - Ideology Trumps as Usual

I had been wondering how long it would take for Paul Wolfowitz' messianic "life illusion" to begin to wreak a path of destruction at the World Bank Group.  Here is the answer.  pl

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a6VAazXTmeWc

The Fatal Flaw...

Last night President Bush announced his adoption of a tri-partite plan for the pacification of Iraq in the context of his vision of the world as a Manichean array of the righteous opposed by the evil, a moiety reminiscent of the war in heaven described so ably by Milton, among others.

His plan represents the application of the counterinsurgency doctrine followed with mixed results by the United States in the 20th Century after its development by the French Army.  This doctrine has now been "discovered?" by General Petraeus and friends and described in prettier words and a more literary style than the nasty old "paras" of my experience could ever have managed. 

As Bernard Fall elucidated the doctrine: "Counterinsurgency = Counter-guerrilla operations + Political Action + Civic Action." 

In Bush's plan:

1-The counter-guerrilla operations will be taken care of by Odierno's Corps hopefully reinforced by Kurdish and Shia allies.  In "Bushworld," the Iraqi "people" yearn to be freed from the depredations of various kinds of "bandits" without regard to the ethnicity of the "bandits" or the Iraqi government forces and so will welcome an increase in the activities of US and government forces throughout Baghdad.  In "Realworld," the Shia population and militias are intent on driving the Sunni Arab population of the city out in order to make Baghdad a secure capital for the Shia "rump" state of Iraq.  To that end the Shia are seeking to drive a "cordon sanitaire" across north Baghdad to isolate the Sunni Arab population to the south and make their departure inevitable.  Since the "Bushworld" and "Realworld" conceptions of truth clash, it is inevitable that the forces engaged will also clash.  Outcome? Who knows.  The troops will fight well.

2- The Civic Action component of the plan will be provided in the form of a "lake" of money to be placed under the control of US field commanders for employment projects in support of the counterinsurgency.  Good idea.

3- The Political Action part of this plan is where the whole scheme is going to collapse.  In "Bushworld" the Maliki "government," sheltered behind American troops in the Green Zone is somehow the equivalent of George Washington's "infant" first administration in that it is groping toward a consolidation of its power in the context of a true regard for the interests of the various peoples of Mesopotamia and Kurdistan.  In "Bushworld" all that is needed is to be sufficiently encouraging and mentoring with Maliki and his ministers to "jump start" the functions of a federal state endowed with a reasonably strong central government.  In "Realworld" Maliki is merely another Shia Arab activist seeking to consolidate Shia Arab control over as much of the old Iraq as can be managed.  In "Realworld" Maliki can not suppress the Shia militia leaders because he is their brother, embarked on the same quest for Shia power.  In "Bushworld" we have asked the Maliki government to participate with us in fighting, if necessary, (and it will be) the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr.  In "Realworld" Sadr is an ally from whom Maliki may not distance himself, because he and Sadr represent the same cause.  Think not?  Think about Saddam's execution.  Think about it.  Who ran the execution?  Who set the terms and circumstances? Was it Maliki?   pl

And None Too Soon...

As you can see from the statement she made today Senator Clinton has parted company with President Bush on Iraq.

There is some risk in this, given the record of her fund raising activities in New York and other places, but the truth is that a failure to walk away from the president's fantasy world would have killed her chances to gain the democratic Perty nomination in '08 and certainly would have made her the kind of "leper" in the national election that McCain and others will be as a result of their support of the catastrophe being inflicted on the US and Iraq by the neocons and President Bush.

The new Congress may have the guts to want to do something about the Bushworld policy announced last night, but the constitutional truth is that it has few tools with which to dictate policy.  President Bush hopes to expand the Army and Marines to "cover" the shortfalls being created by his escalation in Iraq.  That will probably succeed.  There is a vast reservoir of young people from small towns in the United States who can be recruited and those who think that willingness to serve is about money need to get out into the country more. 

Nevertheless, the situation will continue to degenerate and I forecast that by the Summer of '08 our situation will be so bad that any Democrat could be elected.  I suggest that by that time a Clinton/Webb ticket will start to look good to many.  pl

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=267447&&

Read the TNI Article

We are not going to win the war in Iraq with the president's tri-partite plan.  We need to move on past the present calamity in what was Iraq.  The only possible way to salvage this is to look past Iraq at a regional policy.  That policy can only be implemented by intensive and focused diplomacy backed by armed force.  Focused?  Yes.  Focused on American interests.  pl

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=13252

Preview of the Battle of Baghdad

U.S. jets screamed low over central Baghdad Tuesday, helicopter gunships fired into the battle zone and the Iraqi government said 50 insurgents were killed in the nearly daylong battle with U.S. and Iraqi forces along Haifa Street, a Sunni stronghold that has seen repeated heavy fighting throughout the war.

The fighting raged about 2.5 kilometers (1.5 miles) north of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone — home to the U.S. Embassy and thousands of American troops — on the eve of U.S. President George W. Bush's expected announcement that he would dispatch 20,000 more troops to Iraq, despite growing opposition on Capitol Hill where opposition Democrats have taken control.

Elsewhere in Iraq on Tuesday, police reported finding 52 bodies dumped in three cities, 41 of them in Baghdad alone.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

This a preview of what the Battle of Baghdad is going to be like over the next nine months.  That is the Combat Infantry Badge.  If you have that, it means that you are a combat experienced "grunt."  Your sword wins the day.  Everyone else is there to support you. Everyone who has one, wears it.  pl

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/09/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq.php

Contributions

My thanks to everyone who has made a contribution to the maintenance of the blog.  I don't have the ability to thank you all personally.  pl

The Coming Crisis

I have maintained for several years that the biggest reason for our failure to pacify Iraq has been that we are operating in the "Iraq of our dreams," rather than the Iraq in which the various kinds of Iraqis live and which is regarded with mixed greed and fear by its neighbors. 

In the mind of George Bush, Iraq is a country inhabited by a unified single people who are governed (sort of) by a constitutionally elected regime headed by Nuri al-Maliki who is expected to fulfill the role of a George Washington in leading the unitary Iraqi people forward if only the pesky Sunni Arab insurgents could be suppressed or bought off with economic incentives that somehow have not yet been offered.  Another, unassimilable and unaccountable difficulty, is the similarly pesky alignment that exists among our George Washington candidate (Maliki) and the various Shia Arab factional party and militia leaders.  Conclusion and Decision:  Reinforce US forces in the Baghdad region to destroy the Sunni insurgents and force a separation between Maliki (Washington) and the Shia militia and political leaders.  Why the latter decision?  Because Bush's illision about Maliki is not tenable without it.

Problem:  Maliki is not George Washington.  He is only disguised as George Washington. He is in fact, just another Shia political and militia leader, and not the strongest either.  His Washingtonness exists only in the Mind of the Decider and in the "life illusion" (look it up) of many in the 3rd World (especially in poor Iraq) where many of the best people know what it is they should be and can not admit to themselves that they are not.  Is that their fault?  Hell, no! We broke their country and reduced it to a state of factional chaos.  We broke a country that had been trying to become a nation since the '20s.  I will here quote my hero, Mr. Jefferson, "I fear for my country when I know that God is just.

Because of the rich Bushian fantasy life it will be demanded in the New Plan that Maliki distance himself, and indeed fight, if necessary, to disarm and render impotent Shia Arab militias.  He is INCAPABLE OF DOING THAT!! He is one of the Shia Arab leaders.  His role in history is to empower the Shia Arabs and to consolidate their power over the Sunni Arabs.  Was that clear enough?

The United States is going to pressure Maliki HARD to confront Sadr.  He will not do that, and there will then be a massive crisis.

Danielle Pletka, the "sweetheart of the regiment" over at AEI said on "Late Editions," yesterday that Maliki knows that if he "does not perform"...

pl

Sgt. York on Petraeus

Sgt. York is one of our regular commenters who has forwarded these comments on; counterinsurgency, Tel Afar, Barry McCaffery, David Petraeus and, I suppose, Juan Cole.  pl

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"For you Juan Cole fans... he seems to be enamored with Petrauus and impressed that Petreous authored THE manual on counterinsurgency which Juan apparently has not bother to read. If he had, he would have noted that Petreous espouses the clear-hold-build doctrine and cites Tal Afar as a shining example of a successful counterinsurgency strategy. By the way, it's not a realistic strategy to surround Baghdad with an 8-foot earthen berm, flatten the city using artillery and air bombardment, and then 'vet' the refugees as they return to the rubble that was once a city.

Sale on Negroponte Move

"Contrary to the bland stories in The New York Times and Washington Post of Friday, Negroponte did not go voluntarily to State from his job as director of intelligence. In fact, there was tremendous administration pressure to get him out of his current job. The chief cause of the quarrel involved Negroponte's balking at at request from Vice President Cheney to increase domestic collection by the National Security Agency on U.S. citizens.

Negroponte flatly refused, Cheney bridled, and from then on the pressure built to get rid of him. (The White House did not return phone calls, but there is nothing new is that.)

The Bush people, chiefly Cheney and the president, were already annoyed by the fact that the Negroponte group has been busy producing drafts of reports that predict utter disaster in Iraq and which are utterly opposed to any increase of troops. Cheney and Bush both flared in wrath over this. Of course, intelligence is simply evaluated information. Its purpose is to help inform decisions by policymakers, as Pat as so often pointed out. But this this administration perceives objectivity as a inadequate commitment or as an absence of complete loyalty.

The new national director of intelligence Adm. "Mike" McMConnell, has my sources at NSA tearing their hair out. In the view of some very sharp analysts there he was "among the worst directors this agency ever had," in the words of one.

But the rift over increased domestic surveillance was the real reason Negroponte was forced out. I am frankly shocked by seasoned reporters at the NYT who would swallow statements such as Negroponte was never comfortable being a spy and therefore wanted to return to being a diplomat. That is like the Steeler's coach saying he is resigning to spend more time with his family.

Rice, of course, has been looking for a deputy since last June when Zoellick resigned to go to Goldman Sachs. She first asked for Nick Burns, a very canny and experienced guy and that request was squashed by Cheney. Burns will resign, I'm told. She asked for Phil Zoellick who is her special advisor and that went nowhere. She finally negotiated with Bush first and then Cheney and got approval for Negroponte. She can use his expertise on the Middle East.

One further note.

Regarding Cheney's recent trip to Saudi Arabia. Cheney went there to get the Wahabis to start ratcheting up actions against the Hizbullah in Lebanon and elsewhere in the region. Saudi relations with Syria have cooled dramatically since the Hariri murder. As senior CIA officials told me in 2001, Hariri was a Saudi agent for a long time. But one former CIA official told me that Saudi police the other day arrested a man because he put up Nasrallah's picture up on his wall.  What CIA officials I talked to see is a major shift in the terrain -- a growing region-wide alliance between the Sunnis  that will act as a counter to the growing power of the Shia thanks to the mindless U.S. backing of them Iraq.

My sources on this are excellent -- 8.5s out of 10s.

Richard Sale"

Newshour Transcript - 5 July, 2006

I was on the Newshour last night.  Here is the transcript.  Judy Woodruff was the interviewer.  pl 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june07/iraq_01-05.html

real audio

http://media.pbs.org/ramgen/newshour/expansion/2007/01/05/20070105_changes28.rm?altplay=20070105_changes28.rm

mp3 download

http://www-tc.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2007/01/05/20070105_changes28.mp3

Casting for the Play

An intelligence analyst makes judgments based on available data and interprets that data through a mental "filter" made up of experience, contextual knowledge, probabilities and sheer, unmerited, intuitive talent.  Among the most valuable indicators of intentions are the appointments of senior people to fill leadership positions.

In that regard it must be said that the appointment of Admiral William Fallon the the post of Commander, US Central Command is surely indicative of intentions.

This distinguished officer's career lay altogether within the field of naval aviation and latterly of joint staff and command functions.  His official biography is posted below.

It makes very little sense that a person with this background should be appointed to be theater commander in a a theater in which two essentially "ground" wars are being fought unless it is intended to conduct yet another war which will be different in character.  pl

http://www.pacom.mil/leadership/j0/j0bio.shtml

Makkinejad on the Future.

I have a lot of sympathy for many of Babak's judgments here, especially on the nature of post-war Mesopotamia.  You can see the similarity in our views if you look at my post, "TNI.ORG"  pl

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Freeman:

I disagree with Lee Kuan Yew since one cannot judge how the historical process could have evolved in the absence of this or that event. What he is suggesting is akin to religious faith.

I also would like to suggest that if he were indeed correct in his assessment, then the burden of the war should have been borne by these Asian-Values states and not by US.

I also think that one does not need to wait for years or decades to form a correct assessment regarding an specific historical process. As counter examples I submit to you US interventions in Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. In my opinion, they were quite useless to US and were not worth "it".

Or consider WWII: FDR, Stalin, and Churchill were all quite cognizant that the war would find US in a pretty good position.

I think 5 years from now you will have a stronger (I am an oil determinist) Shia dominated government in Arab Iraq with a continued Sunni insurgency - sort of like Chechnya or Israel in the Occupied Territories.

I think you will have a stronger Kurdish Iraq which will continue to be a prosperous but uneasy tribal confederation (Barzani & Talabani tribes).

I do not know how long Iran will continue to pursue her fantasies just as I do not know how long US will pursue hers. But the destruction of the Iraqi State has left her with a very strong position and that cannot be changed regardless of what the advocates of air power claim.

But I think that 5 years from now you will see the same type of relationship (but stronger) between Iran & Iraq that Iran has with Afghanistan today - specially Western Afghanistan.

I believe that Iraq will never again be (re-)constituted as an "Arab Nationalist" state. In fact, I think Arabism is also dead.

All that is left is a choice between restricted representative government such as the Islamic Republic of Iran or more despotism (secular or religious: Saudi Arabia, Oman, Egypt, Jordan, Azerbaijan etc.)."

Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 04 January 2007 at 05:25 PM

"Walrus" speaks.

"Walrus" sent me this.  I am not "Walrus."  I agree with much of this, especially the numbered points. pl

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading from Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly" Again, I would like to paraphrase what we have seen and can expect to see in future.

To do so, you need to understand what the NeoCons objectives have been from the outset. They are a little Like Kaiser Wilhelms' reasons for encouraging German militarism from about 1900.

1. Protect the existence and power of the "military Industrial Complex". This has been under threat since the demise of the Soviet Union because people started to demand a "peace Dividend". The result was the PNAC and the idea that America, now being the sole pre-eminent superpower, should maintain this position - in other words keep spending on defence.

2. Demonise Arabs, the existence of an enemy is a pretext by a ruling class for postponing any social change aimed at reversing the massive social inequities between rich and poor in America for example reforming taxation, social security, health care, education, etc. etc. "because we are at war". These issues threaten the rich.

In other words, the entire NeoCon thing is all about maintaining the status quo and keeping the lid on the pressures for reform.

Then of course we have the Israeli Likudnik plan - which is to provide the demonic enemy with which the NeoCons have conjured with. If one listens to them one would think that Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, the Taliban, Al Qaeeda, the muslim brotherhood, and the rest of these organisations are part of the evil Islam Inc. which is plotting to take over the known universe, controlled by a group of bearded and bejwelled fiends living in a cave high in the mountains of Iran, even now plotting the destruction of Peoria or some place.

They have successfully enticed us into destroying their main enemy - Iraq for them.

That is the reality we are being sold.

Of course on the ground in Iraq there is real "reality" which is considerably different from the NeoCon/Likudnik version.

So anyway they are now confronted with a mess - and as the Kagan powerpoint presentation points out, failure will be cataclysmic.

Of course what they really mean is that failure will be cataclysmic for them and their backers.

If America backs out of the middle east leaving Iran intact, the following will happen:

1. Iran is now the recognised regional power in the Middle East and will have a very large say in dictating what happens to the remains of Iraq.

2. Israel will be faced with the need to make some form of accomodation with the Islamic powers in the region.

3. Successive Congresses will bind the President and the military industrial complex hand and foot to prevent a repeat of this folly.

4. Right wing thinktanks and their associated pundits will be discredited.

5. Congress will have to reform taxation to pay for the war (remember when Iraqi Oil revenue was supposed to cover the cost of all this?)

6. A decade of soul searching and reform about the electoral system, the media, campaign finance, lobbying and similar issues will occur - sharply reducing the powers of the current ruling class to manipulate Americans so easily.

In other words, for Bush and his friends, defeat really is "unthinkable", just as it was to Kaiser Wilhelm when Wilson proposed a "victorless Peace" to Germany in 1917. Unless there is victory, the entire NeoCon world gets swept away, as do the Likudniks.

For that reason, expect a savage campaign to clear Baghdad of insurgents - which will fail with the loss of a great deal of American and Iraqi blood, followed by an all out bombing attack on Iran.

For the NeoCons, there is no other choice available to them, that is the tragedy.

More Deluded Foolishness

The Commentariat is in full cry, analyzing the carefully timed "trial balloons" drifting across Washington from the launch pad secreted in the bushes of the Rose Garden.

The message is that "Surge and Accelerate" will be the war cry:

1-20,000 additional combat troops formed in units as I have previously prophesied.  These troops and their Iraqi "comrades" to secure the Baghdad area so as to insure the survival of the Government of Iraq for a while. 

2- Political "pressure" on Maliki and company to "reconcile" enough people across the ethno-religious spectrum to stabilize the government for a while.

A Jeffersonian president

This a statue of Gerald Ford, 38th president of the United States as an Eagle Scout.  It stands at the Boy Scouts' Headquarters.

In many ways this statue typifies the man.  The Boy Scouts of America are a treasured national institution, an institution which teaches the kind of sturdy character, and forthright life grounded firmly in the soil and history of the United States that most Americans think of as typical of our people.  He was the kind of president for whom Jefferson hoped, a man who knew better than to imagine himself a kind of king, if only for a few years.

Jefferson, himself could never quite "pull it off."  He believed all the right things, but he could not escape his own time, circumstances or upbringing.  He was an upper class gentleman through and through. He tried.  He tried.  After his first inaugural, he deliberately walked in the dirt of Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House, surrounded by children and tradesmen.  He struck down the abomination of the "Alien and Sedition Act," and freed the newspapermen who had been imprisoned by the previous administration.  He wrote the "Kentucky Resolutions," a perpetual manifesto against aristocratic, centralizing government.  Personally, I think he was the greatest of all Americans.  Yes, I know all about Sally Hemings.  I hope they were happy together.

Gerald Ford was in many ways the fulfillment of Jefferson's belief of what the president should be.  He was dutiful, honest, modest, humble, courageous, decent and a true citizen/magistrate.  He and his family lived for many, many years in Alexandria, Virginia in a unpretentious brick house set in the "Clover" neighborhood of the town.  He and his wife were noted in the town for their participation in the civic life of the city, their devotion to Alexandria's public schools (which their children all attended) and their constant involvement in charitable works.  They were well loved in the neighborhood where they lived throughout the years in which he served in the House of Representatives, as Vice President of the United States and for ten days as President of the United States.

Alexandria was the home of George Washington, Robert E. Lee, Werner von Braun and many other people of note.

We Alexandrians are proud to call Gerald Ford our neighbor.  pl

http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm

Sgt York on Lynching

One of my correspondents, who calls himself Sgt.  York sent this.  I found it interesting.  I include this note as to provenance for those of you (several already) who do not seem to understand the meaning of quotation marks.  pl

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Taunting someone about to be executed is something they do at lynchings, not judicial proceedings.

This was a lynching. Reminds me of those Western movies where the Sheriff has a cattle rustler in his jail and the mob demands that he be turned over for a hanging... except the sheriff rufuses.

S.H. was captured by the US Military and was in US Military custody. He should have been given POW status according to the GC. Instead, US soldiers walked him back and forth from his jailcell to a sham trial and then escorted him from the US Military prison and handed him over to the lynch mob.

He was in US custody and a prisoner of war. The US had the option to try him for crimes against the US (not sure what those are) or to turn him over to the Hague for crimes against humanity.

The Western Sheriff is now a thug who surrendered his prisoner to the lynch mob.

Sgt. York"

Here we go...