Uh oh! The New York Times...

[Yonivore]

...has shifted its narrative on the war! Egads!!! Can the rest of the leftist media be far behind?

Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack, both fellows at the Brookings Institution, argue in a New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?ex=1343448000&en=33fd6c98de2a6409&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) entitled "A War We Just Might Win" that the war in Iraq is being won.


Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. ...

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.
What factors made the difference? According to the authoris, the first is a successful campaign of political warfare: connecting the Coalition's objectives with improvements in the daily lives of the people.


Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.
Second is the availability of Iraqi military units of reasonable quality.


All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark. But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.
Of course these Iraqi units did not spring into existence over night. They are the cumulative result of years of sustained effort. Even the removal of Iraqi deadwood grew from a process of weeding out the failures. Without diminishing the achievements of the current group of commanders the situation in Iraq must reflect both the mistakes and the solid accomplishments of those who came before.


In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.
Interestingly, al Qaeda chose to make Iraq its decisive arena of confrontation with the United States. The US came to Iraq primarily to topple Saddam Hussein and remove one "state sponsor of terrorism" but it was Al Qaeda that rushed in to stake its reputation there. A networked insurgency with followers in many Muslim countries could have chosen to attack America elsewhere. But instead it decided to focus its efforts on driving the US from Iraq. For that purpose its leadership established al Qaeda in Iraq and funneled recruits into it from all over the world. This force was tasked with the explicit political goal of creating a Islamic Caliphate that would provide a prototype for a future Islamic state after the hated Americans had been driven out. Therefore, much of the post-Saddam violence was probably the consequence of al Qaeda's decision to flood all the resources of world terrorism into Iraq. Clearly, Zarqawi's clear intention from the Samarra mosque bombing onward was to incite as much violence as he could. Given that al Qaeda made Iraq the center of its global efforts, O’Hanlon and Pollack's admiration of the Multi-national Force in Iraq's decision to focus against it seems perplexing. Surely Petraeus had no alternative? Surely he was simply picking up the gauntlet? But that would not quite be true.

Through much of 2005 and 2006 a variety of lines were suggested. Some argued that the US should lash out against Syria or Iran for allowing "militants" to transit their borders. Some believed Shi'a militias should be the primary target of operations. Until recently many argued -- and still argue -- that al Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq at all; so how could MNF-I focus against what was not there? So while taking on al Qaeda now seems the obvious choice, in retrospect there were many other candidates vying for the title of Center of Gravity. Those bad guys still remain, but MNF-I saw al Qaeda in Iraq as the key to the position and, that choice, according to O’Hanlon and Pollack, appears to be the right one.

Time will tell. But if focusing on al Qaeda in Iraq is the right choice the most interesting question is; why?

An intelligence blogger I read guesses that by attacking al Qaeda, the US engaged not only the most fanatical force in Iraq but the one with the most powerful narrative. And by shrewdly matching kinetic warfare with political warfare, organizing the victims of al Qaeda's depredations, it brought the myth down to earth. As long as al Qaeda remained an "idea" it might be regarded as invincible, a mystical will o' the wisp. But once this mystical force was forced to materialize in Iraq, it became embodied in the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his henchmen, who, viewed up close, turned out to be nothing more than brutal gangsters of the lowest and most sadistic type instead of latter day Companions of the Prophet. Even Zawahiri, despite his pretensions to refinement, could not avoid discrediting himself as he proved unable to resist threatening to gouge people's eyes out if they did not follow his bidding. It is said that no man is a hero to his own valet. Familiarity with the genuine article brought disillusionment, contempt and finally hatred for al Qaeda.

And without the romantic mantle of apocalyptic Islamism to puff them up, both Syria and Iran would shrink to the third-rate powers that they truly are. In choosing al Qaeda as its focus, MNF-I indirectly weakened both Tehran and Damascus in ways that both were powerless to counter. None of this has been completely achieved yet. But as O’Hanlon and Pollack state, Iraq while not yet won is getting better. And if the process continues much will be accomplished if al Qaeda can be defeated in Iraq; their image tarnished beyond repair and their narrative shown to be a pack of lies. The New York Times article concludes "there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008."

Yes, but to some degree it misses the point. What is happening on the battlefield is changing perceptions in Iraq and perhaps throughout the region.

Ironically, the US Armed Forces may now know much better than the press that operations go beyond body counts. But whenever US forces are withdrawn the information war must go on. Because the one great probability in the Middle East is that each failed creed gives rise to a new one. The same Six Day War which discredited Nasserism simultaneously launched its successor movement. Radical Islamism harnessed the tide of disillusionment and redirected it to its purposes. And as Al Qaeda falls in esteem in the Muslim world from its post-September 11 halcyon days, other ideologues will probably attempt to fashion a new movement based on its carcass. That's why the information war should go on until politics in the Middle East is transformed from a sequence of messianic movements to practical endeavor. Until then the victories on Iraq's battlefields will be temporary.

At Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/our_national_funk.html), Michael Barone dissects the latest Pew Global Attitudes survey. There is some specific good news about attitudes in Muslim countries:


[T]he Pew Global survey showed sharply reduced numbers of Muslims saying that suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified as compared with 2002. That's still the view of 70 percent in the Palestinian territories. But that percentage has declined from 74 percent to 34 percent in Lebanon, from 43 percent to 23 percent in Jordan, and from 33 percent to 9 percent in Pakistan.
More broadly, what is striking is how much optimism is reflected in the survey, world-wide. Global economic growth has sparked a high level of confidence in the future, even in Africa. The United States, however, is an exception:


Most strikingly, only 25 percent of Americans are positive about the direction of the nation, down from 41 percent in 2002. In only a handful of the 47 nations are there declines of similar magnitude -- Uganda, the Czech Republic, France, Canada and Italy.

***

[B]y a two-to-one margin Americans say their children will be worse off than we are. There's a similar response in Canada, Britain and Brazil. The even more negative verdicts in Western Europe and Japan can be explained as a cool assessment of the combination of low birthrates and overgenerous welfare states.

But what basis do Americans have to suppose that, for the first time in history, a younger generation will be worse off than their parents? Perhaps it's just a feeling that things cannot possibly get any better. In any case, we seem to be in a pronounced national funk.
Barone concludes by suggesting that Americans should snap out of it. Good advice; but I think what we are seeing is partly faux pessimism. As Barone notes:


It's partly a partisan response: Almost all Democrats are negative about the nation's future.
I think that many Americans are attuned to the idea of using the opportunity presented by a phone call from a pollster to make a political point. I seriously doubt that nearly all Democrats really believe the nation is more or less doomed to decline; if a Democratic President is elected next November, the country's prospects will brighten considerably in their eyes. There is a reason why the theme song of winning campaigns has traditionally been, "Happy Days Are Here Again."

But, I think Democrats are afraid Happy Days will arrive before the next election and, therefore, are going to stick to the "Iraq-is-lost" narrative for as long as humanly possible.

[Peter]

So that was an op-ed in the Times? How does that show that the Times itself has changed its stance?

Also, do you have a link for your blog?

[Yonivore]

So that was an op-ed in the Times? How does that show that the Times itself has changed its stance?
Because the opinion pages is where the editors display their stance? Good news on the Iraqi war front rarely -- if ever -- makes the editorial pages of the New York Times.


Also, do you have a link for your blog?
I don't have a blog.

[PixelPusher]

The eternal question (the answer often evaded or changed) for Iraq is "What is victory?"

If it has now been ultra-condensed and oversimplified into "defeating AQI", then your optimism is justified. If it's "a stable, unified Iraq", then you're in for a nasty shock once your "Mission Accomplished: AQI edition" parade ends.



Iraqi leader tells Bush: Get Gen Petraeus out (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/28/wirq128.xml)
By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 12:43am BST 29/07/2007

Relations between the top United States general in Iraq and Nouri al-Maliki, the country's prime minister, are so bad that the Iraqi leader made a direct appeal for his removal to President George W Bush.

Although the call was rejected, aides to both men admit that Mr Maliki and Gen David Petraeus engage in frequent stand-up shouting matches, differing particularly over the US general's moves to arm Sunni tribesmen to fight al-Qa'eda.

One Iraqi source said Mr Maliki used a video conference with Mr Bush to call for the general's signature strategy to be scrapped. "He told Bush that if Petraeus continues, he would arm Shia militias," said the official. "Bush told Maliki to calm down."

At another meeting with Gen Petraeus, Mr Maliki said: "I can't deal with you any more. I will ask for someone else to replace you."

Gen Petraeus admitted that the relationship was stormy, saying: "We have not pulled punches with each other."

President Bush's support for Mr Maliki is deeply controversial within the US government because of the Iraqi's ties to Shia militias responsible for some of the worst sectarian violence.

The New York Times claimed yesterday that Saudi Arabia was refusing to work with Mr Maliki and has presented "evidence" that he was an Iranian intelligence agent to US officials. "Bush administration officials are voicing increasing anger at what they say has been Saudi Arabia's counterproductive role in the war," it reported.

Alongside the firm support of Mr Bush, Mr Maliki also enjoys the backing of Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador and his predecessor, Zalmay Khalilzad, now America's representative at the United Nations.

Mr Khalilzad took a swipe at Saudi Arabia in an editorial published earlier this month that was widely seen as an appeal for a larger UN role in stabilising Iraq.

Mr Crocker, who attends Mr Maliki's stormy weekly meetings with Gen Petraeus, said the Iraqi leader was a strong partner of America.

"There is no leader in the world that is under more pressure than Nouri al-Maliki, without question," he said. "Sometimes he reflects that frustration. I don't blame him. I probably would too."
The above story is about a LOT more than a spat between Maliki and Petraeus, It's about Sunni vs. Shia. I may be convenient for you to pretend all this sectarian violence is nothing more than a AQI plot to destablize Iraq, but that naive notion will be disabused once AQI is "defeated" and the civil war resumes in earnest.

[PixelPusher]

Also, do you have a link for your blog?

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[boutons_]

NYT "has shifted its narrative on the war"

dubya has shifted away from:

OBL (oops!)
WMD in Iraq (oops!),
Saddam/AQ (oops!),
Saddam/WTC (oops!)
democracy/freedom for Iraqis (oops!)

... down to just current-talisman Petraeus beating up on dubya's graciously invited guests in Iraq, AQI.

[boutons_]

"It's about Sunni vs. Shia"

of course it is. Maliki/Shia is a hard-core anti-Baathist/Sunni warrior, completely untrusted by the Sunnis.

Maliki is of course extremely upset by Petraeus creating and equipping Sunnis neighborhood militias.

btw, the US Army has LONG reported that the majority, at one time 90%, of US casulties come from Sunnis.

dubya's invitees, AQI (native and imported), are also Sunni.

Is Yoni finally catching on? The primary problem is Shiite/Sunni inter-sectarion violence and political polarization, NOT AQI attacking US military.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yoni and the other dead enders seem to think that the GOP benefits if the surge works. They won't because people just want out of Iraq as soon as possible. The public won't view it as a GOP victory rather they will look at it as , what in the hell took so long?.. For te GOP it is a lose-lose proposition..good for them. they whored and played politics with this war and it came back to bite them in the ass..

[PixelPusher]

Yoni and the other dead enders seem to think that the GOP benefits if the surge works. They won't because people just want out of Iraq as soon as possible. The public won't view it as a GOP victory rather they will look at it as , what in the hell took so long?.. For te GOP it is a lose-lose proposition..good for them. they whored and played politics with this war and it came back to bite them in the ass..
You're assuming we'll pull out our troops after "defeating" AQI...Goddamn, it's amazing after 4 years of this shit, they refuse to consider the possibility of negative consequences.

[Peter]

The US will pull out when it is safe for ExxonMobilChevronTexacoConocoPhillips.

[Yonivore]

Yoni and the other dead enders seem to think that the GOP benefits if the surge works. They won't because people just want out of Iraq as soon as possible. The public won't view it as a GOP victory rather they will look at it as , what in the hell took so long?.. For te GOP it is a lose-lose proposition..good for them. they whored and played politics with this war and it came back to bite them in the ass..
And you seem to think the Democrats will benefit. But, you forget, these internet tubes have a long memory and the '08 election cycle will be full of quotes from your favorite candidates saying the war in Iraq was lost when, in fact, it wasn't.

It's not the GOP playing politics with the war.

[Yonivore]

The US will pull out when it is safe for ExxonMobilChevronTexacoConocoPhillips.
Did Boutons change his name?

[George Gervin's Afro]

And you seem to think the Democrats will benefit. But, you forget, these internet tubes have a long memory and the '08 election cycle will be full of quotes from your favorite candidates saying the war in Iraq was lost when, in fact, it wasn't.

It's not the GOP playing politics with the war.


yet you still can't define victory... oh wait what if the Iraqi govt aligns with Iran? Can dems then remind the voters that it was the GOP that caused this worst case scenerio by whoring an unecessary war?

[Peter]

Of course the fact that Iraq has undeveloped reserves which could rival the Saudi's doesn't matter. At this point, given what the US has expended in terms of lives, broken lives, and $ it would be stupid to withdraw without ensuring those resources are developed. But you're kidding yourself if you believe that Iraq's petroleum development potential was not a consideration in the decision to invade.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Of course the fact that Iraq has undeveloped reserves which could rival the Saudi's doesn't matter. At this point, given what the US has expended in terms of lives, broken lives, and $ it would be stupid to withdraw without ensuring those resources are developed. But you're kidding yourself if you don't believe that Iraq's petroleum development potential was not a consideration in the decision to invade.


hey Peter... we invaded Iraq because they had stockpiles of wmds, I mean mobile bio weapons labs, er to promote democarcy in the region, I mean to liberate the Iraqi people, oh wait Saddam was a bad guy so we invaded.. this had nothing to do with oil.. :rolleyes

[fyatuk]

Of course the fact that Iraq has undeveloped reserves which could rival the Saudi's doesn't matter. At this point, given what the US has expended in terms of lives, broken lives, and $ it would be stupid to withdraw without ensuring those resources are developed. But you're kidding yourself if you believe that Iraq's petroleum development potential was not a consideration in the decision to invade.

No doubt it was, just not for the reasons the overly-insane-anti-Bush think. US government just wants that oil on the market to avoid an economic meltdown caused by high oil prices (we've experienced a part of it), not that they want it under US control.

That oil couldn't really be developed or put on the market while sanctions were in place. Sanction could not be removed while Saddam was in power. So to get it developed and into the market to relieve some of the demand pressure, Saddam had to go.

Certainly a consideration, though.

[Extra Stout]

No doubt it was, just not for the reasons the overly-insane-anti-Bush think. US government just wants that oil on the market to avoid an economic meltdown caused by high oil prices (we've experienced a part of it), not that they want it under US control.

That oil couldn't really be developed or put on the market while sanctions were in place. Sanction could not be removed while Saddam was in power. So to get it developed and into the market to relieve some of the demand pressure, Saddam had to go.

Certainly a consideration, though.
You say that so nonchalantly.

[boutons_]

"US government just wants that oil on the market"

the Iraqis are quite capable of that with Iranian and Russian assistance.

dubya wants exclusive/primary access to Iraqi oil for US/UK (aka the "coalition") oilcos AND under revenue-sharing contracts (rather than the less lucrative oil-lease contracts).

The US has put pressure on the Iraqis from right after the invasion, AS A PRIORITY, to get that that Iraqi oil law/revenue-sharing done.

Wake the fuck up, dubya suckers, Iraq is all about the oil and about NOTHING ELSE.

[Yonivore]

hey Peter... we invaded Iraq because they had stockpiles of wmds, I mean mobile bio weapons labs, er to promote democarcy in the region, I mean to liberate the Iraqi people, oh wait Saddam was a bad guy so we invaded.. this had nothing to do with oil.. :rolleyes
See AUMF in Iraq.

[Peter]

Meanwhile Range Rovers can be spotted parked in front of most retail developments with a Starbucks, Talbot's, and California Pizza Kitchen sporting 'No War for Oil' and 'Impeach Bush' bumper stickers. You need something more than a butter knife to cut through the irony.

[fyatuk]

Wake the fuck up, dubya suckers, Iraq is all about the oil and about NOTHING ELSE.

If that was the case, don't you think the Coalition would have put forth a much greater effort into protecting the oil pumps and pipelines instead of letting production lag significantly behind the end of the Saddam era for a couple years?

You still haven't shown me anything that shows pressure being applied to the Iraqi government to privatize the oil fields or have exclusive rights or revenue sharing with them.

[gtownspur]

The US will pull out when it is safe for ExxonMobilChevronTexacoConocoPhillips.




I guess we will have to avoid invading countries wether just or not, if they have any sort of natural resource to exploit, because keyboard pseudo-analyst part time comedians will poo any war effort to make them appear smarter than anyone else.

[gtownspur]

Meanwhile Range Rovers can be spotted parked in front of most retail developments with a Starbucks, Talbot's, and California Pizza Kitchen sporting 'No War for Oil' and 'Impeach Bush' bumper stickers. You need something more than a butter knife to cut through the irony.


Meanwhile spineless aggies with a penchant for getting glazed sit here pontificating on their immovable ghost position they've had on the war all this time, that was never there to defend.

[Nbadan]

If that was the case, don't you think the Coalition would have put forth a much greater effort into protecting the oil pumps and pipelines instead of letting production lag significantly behind the end of the Saddam era for a couple years?

...see 'Iraqi oil being sold on black-market'.....their's a very interesting theory that the oilco's are deflating the amount of oil they are pumping out of the Iraqi oil fields to mask the declining Saudi oil fields and avoid a world-wide global oil panic...

[boutons_]

"don't you think the Coalition would have put forth a much greater effort into protecting the oil pumps and pipelines instead of letting production lag significantly behind the end of the Saddam era for a couple years?"

Not enough US military to go after the insurgents, not even enough just for Bagdad (therefore the 30K surge), let alone defend dozens of refinery sites and 100s of miles of pipeline. I'm sure they would if they could, but the oil infrastructure is part of the total Iraqi infrastructure that has been degraded/poorly maintained/un-re-built after the US broke Iraq and couldn't assure public security.

"pressure being applied to the Iraqi government to privatize the oil fields or have exclusive rights or revenue sharing with them."

Look for yourself. A few weeks ago, the Iraqi oil unions and oil industry professionals were threatening to strike/protest over the way the Iraqi oil law was being drafted, which is being done with input and close monitoring from the Repugs. The oil law just isn't about how to split the oil revenues among Kurd/Shia/Sunni regions, but also over the types of contracts with foreign oilcos and how much $$ the foreigners make off Iraqi oil. The Repugs want the much more lucrative revenue-sharing, not leases. Of course, if leases is all they can get (if the ever get anything), they will take leases. Expect cut-throat competition from Iran, China, and Russia for those oil leases.

[fyatuk]

Well, doing a little research, I found a whole 3 mentions that weren't on leftists sites (which I skipped since they are as much BS as the ultra righty sites). All three of those mentioned concerns over the amount of control foreign investers might have, but focused on the main reason being they wanted more regional control over the oil, including raises that the central government would then have zero control over.

I could not find a single mention of the strike on any of the english language arab news sites I check.

So apparently it was a big deal to leftist party-liners like you, but not really to anyone else, including the Arabs, in terms of concern over privatisation.

And again, no mention of any sort of interference by the US into what the "hydrocarbon" law will say.

[boutons_]

Iraqis Resist US Pressure to Enact Oil Law

By Tina Susman
The Los Angeles Times

Sunday 13 May 2007

Foreign investment and Shiite control are the primary concerns. A White House deadline for passage is in doubt.

Baghdad - It has not even reached parliament, but the oil law that U.S. officials call vital to ending Iraq's civil war is in serious trouble among Iraqi lawmakers, many of whom see it as a sloppy document rushed forward to satisfy Washington's clock.

Opposition ranges from vehement to measured, but two things are clear: The May deadline that the White House had been banking on is in doubt. And even if the law is passed, it fails to resolve key issues, including how to divide Iraq's oil revenue among its Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni regions, and how much foreign investment to allow. Those questions would be put off for future debates.

The problems of the oil bill bode poorly for the other so-called benchmarks that the Bush administration has been pressuring Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government to meet. Those include provincial elections, reversing a prohibition against former Baath Party members holding government and military positions and revision of Iraq's constitution.

Republican leaders in Washington have warned administration officials that if the Iraqi government fails to meet those benchmarks by the end of the summer, remaining congressional support for Bush's Iraq policies could crumble. Their impatience was underscored Wednesday by Vice President Dick Cheney during a visit here.

"I did make it clear that we believe it's very important to move on the issues before us in a timely fashion, and that any undue delay would be difficult to explain," Cheney told reporters.

But Iraqi lawmakers show little sign of bending to accommodate Bush on an issue as crucial as oil.

"We have two clocks the Baghdad clock and the Washington clock and this is a perfect example," said Mahmoud Othman, a lawmaker from the semiautonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq. "This has always been the case. Washington has been pushing the Iraqis to do things to fit their agenda."

Iraq is believed to have some of the world's largest oil reserves, about 115 billion barrels. The country's 2007 budget is based on predictions that oil proceeds will reach $31 billion, 93% of the government's revenue.

But war and political instability have kept production down. Just before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, production was 2.6 million barrels per day. U.S. officials predicted a rapid rise to 3 million barrels. Instead, Iraq often has struggled to push the daily total to 2 million barrels because of obsolete equipment and security problems.

The oil law is supposed to change this by opening the industry to foreign investors who could modernize equipment and increase production. U.S. officials hope that spreading oil profit fairly across the country would cause instability to ebb.

Iraq's cabinet, the Council of Ministers, approved a draft oil measure in February. From there, it was to go to parliament. U.S. officials predicted passage would be quick, but it has stalled.

The objections are as vast and technical as the measure itself and reflect the wider problems facing Iraq: regional distrust of the Shiite-led central government; wariness of foreign interest; and anger toward the United States, which many Iraqis believe invaded Iraq solely to get its hands on the oil.

Kurds Object

The Kurdish regional government voiced its opposition to the measure last month after seeing lists drawn up by the Iraqi central government that categorized the oil fields according to levels of development and geographical boundaries. Those factors would determine who would manage the fields and the contracts involving them regional authorities or the state-run Iraq National Oil Co., which has yet to be established.

Kurdish authorities say the lists gave 93% of fields to the national oil company, including some they say are at least partially in Kurdish territory. Their dissatisfaction has been made blazingly clear on the Kurdistan regional government website, which has posted the lists along with comments in red letters beside the sections they oppose.

"WRONG!" and "TOO BIG!" are common remarks.

Kurdish officials have said that unless the lists are redrawn, they will not support the bill. Kurdish parties control about one-fifth of the parliament.

Other points of contention, which have drawn in Sunnis as well as Shiites, involve the mechanism for distributing oil profit and the degree of foreign participation in a committee that would set policy on contracts and other industry issues.

None of those is clarified in the proposed legislation.

"Quite a lot of it is not good, to be honest," said a Western energy expert in Baghdad who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid angering Iraqi officials. "A lot of the difficult questions were fudged, like revenue sharing and who controls the oil fields. These obviously are vitally important, but they wanted a benchmark passed, so it was pushed," he said, referring to U.S. officials.

The question of how to divvy the money is especially troublesome because of Sunni Arab and Kurdish distrust of the Shiite-led government. Under the proposed law, the central government would control a bank account used for distributing oil proceeds.

"There were ideas that checks from the single oil account should have three signatures: one should be Sunni; one should be Shiite; one should be Kurd," said Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq who left the post in March.

Passing the measure "requires a very hands-on effort by the international community, by the United States," Khalilzad said. "This is the paradox of this situation. We have a greater sense of urgency because of our situation than they do."

The Western energy expert said Iraqi politicians estimate that a decision will take a few months or perhaps until the end of the year. "They say, 'Hang on, this is an important law, we're not just going to pass it,' " he said.

Foreign Investment

Next to how to divide the money, the most contentious issue appears to be the role of foreign investment. The measure envisions profit-sharing agreements, which reward foreign contractors for doing business in risky environments.

Even those who support the proposal as a framework have reservations about the details.

"All in all, we need the new law. The existing ones are very old," said Haider Abadi, a member of Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party, a Shiite group. "Having said this, though, it does not mean that at this stage we are for a full opening of the doors to foreign investment in the oil sector."

Salim Abdullah Jabouri, a spokesman for the Sunni bloc, also expressed concern about having foreign companies profiting from Iraqi oil. "We think that the timing of this law is not suitable," he said.

Some of the fiercest opposition has come from oil workers, who threatened to go on strike this week to protest the legislation.

Imad Abdul Hussain, a leader of the Federation of Oil Unions, said workers want oil production to remain in government hands.

"Oil is Iraq's sovereignty. It is the only wealth in Iraq. It unifies Iraqis. When we give it to a foreign investor, this means the sovereignty is taken away," he said.

Energy experts, though, say Iraq has no hope of increasing production without foreign expertise and money.

Beyond all the political issues looms Iraq's most basic problem: security. The country may need help from outside investors, but "without security and a stable regime, none of this will mean much, because they won't come in," said Gal Luft, an energy expert at the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, a Washington think tank that studies energy-related security issues.

There were at least 15 attacks on Iraqi oil facilities in the first three months of the year, according to the institute. They included slayings of oil industry workers and bombings of wells and the pipeline that carries oil from Baiji, in northern Iraq, to Turkey.

The number of attacks is lower than during the same period last year, but Luft said that is because saboteurs' favorite target, the pipeline, has been hit so many times that it rarely functions.

"They normally do not attack pipelines that are not in operation," Luft said.

[fyatuk]

See, now that's a better article to post that some BS from leftist sites like you normally do.

Of course, it contradicts your claims in a couple parts, including parts that you highlighted yourself (btw, bolding like that doesn't actually help, makes you look quite juvenile too).

It specifically mentions the US pushed legislation fails to resolve the issue of how much foreign investment to allow. In fact, the implication of the article is that it is practically empty legislation.

Then you have the Kurds, whose complaint is that it would move control of their oil fields from regional control to the Iraqi National Oil Company. They're fighting to maintain regional control.

The article also fails to mention the other problems that involved the strike, such as bonuses being eliminated, and again, the regional v central governmental control of oil revenues.

The SUPER BOLD part about Washington pushing Iraq to fit it's agenda's is obviously referring to timeline wise, not actual platforms or ideals. Which is because Democrats are forcing the issue with a timeline of their own.

Oh and yeah, the public opinion of an ethnic group historically opposed to the US anyway is a really good benchmark on what's really going on. :rolleyes

The article also mentions that Iraq has no way of keeping it's oil sector up to date without foreign investors, and since the US pushed bill apparently doesn't resolve the amount of foreign investors, as per the article, it's highly possible the bill says only that foreign investors should be brought onboard.

So you managed to post an article that supports your position that the US is pushing legislation that invokes foreign investments, and that a large chunk of Iraqis don't like that idea.. The article doesn't support your position that the US is trying to take control of it, plus the article glosses over and ignores several other problems that are related to it. Not suprising since this is the LA Times, and the Times should have a left bent to satisfy its customer base (not extreme, but it should favor that side, it'd be good business to).

Still, it's a step in the right direction from your normal posts.

[Yonivore]

Dayum! First the New York Times and now, a real live Democrat!

I'm not yet persuaded the tide is actually turning in Washington, but this piece by Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html) in the Washington Post provides some grounds for optimism. They report that House Majority Whip James Clyburn says a strongly positive statement progress in Iraq by General Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

According to Clyburn, Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House (i.e., the less than liberal Democrats). Sadly, it's not clear that Petraeus carries as much weight with moderate and liberal Republicans.

As significant as what Clyburn said is the way he said it. According to Clyburn, a strongly positive report by Petraeus would be "a real big problem for us."

Clyburn's candor may be commendable, but it's unfortunate that the Dems regard strongly positive news from Iraq as a problem.

[Yonivore]

Bump


According to Clyburn, a strongly positive report by Petraeus would be "a real big problem for us."
I'm curious what the Democrats, anti-war, liberals, or Bush haters, on this forum, make of that statement.

[Wild Cobra]

...has shifted its narrative on the war! Egads!!! Can the rest of the leftist media be far behind?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have stated one or more times something to the effect:

The main stream media reports unfavorable to republicans upon just rumor, but only reports unfavorable against democrats when the truth is undeniable.

Isn't it obvious the reverse would be true?

The MSM only reports positive for the republicans when the truth is undeniable, and always reports positive for the democrats unless the undenable truth is otherwise?

Anyone who has half a brain and listens to multiple media sources knows the surge is working!

[George Gervin's Afro]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have stated one or more times something to the effect:

The main stream media reports unfavorable to republicans upon just rumor, but only reports unfavorable against democrats when the truth is undeniable.

Isn't it obvious the reverse would be true?

The MSM only reports positive for the republicans when the truth is undeniable, and always reports positive for the democrats unless the undenable truth is otherwise?

Anyone who has half a brain and listens to multiple media sources knows the surge is working!



It may be working but pardon us for not immediately taking the word of the administration as being completely truthful.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Bump


I'm curious what the Democrats, anti-war, liberals, or Bush haters, on this forum, make of that statement.


Yoni I am sure there is much more to that story than you have posted. Conservtaives are very good at taking statements out of context and attaching them to whatever is politically convenient.

If I were to guess what this dude was saying (and as i have mentioned there is probably much more to it) that if this surge is working then it will be hard to justify to start bringing the troops home now. it would cause us , those who want to start bringing GIs home, some trouble even passing the legislation now. That's a guess..

I have a feeling that you are going to interpret this guy's statement and assign it to the 'all of the libs want us to lose' mantra

If that's that's the case (the surge working) this is good news because the surge may in fact allow us to bring our troops home sooner rather than later. We want our troops home Yoni whether the surge works or not..anyway to end this war is good enough for me.. you on the other hand are hoping to save face.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Dayum! First the New York Times and now, a real live Democrat!

I'm not yet persuaded the tide is actually turning in Washington, but this piece by Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html) in the Washington Post provides some grounds for optimism. They report that House Majority Whip James Clyburn says a strongly positive statement progress in Iraq by General Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

According to Clyburn, Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House (i.e., the less than liberal Democrats). Sadly, it's not clear that Petraeus carries as much weight with moderate and liberal Republicans.

As significant as what Clyburn said is the way he said it. According to Clyburn, a strongly positive report by Petraeus would be "a real big problem for us."

Clyburn's candor may be commendable, but it's unfortunate that the Dems regard strongly positive news from Iraq as a problem.


Just found the REST of the article.. and not surprisingly Yoni and his editing skills have skewed the comments:



Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War

By Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writer and Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Monday, July 30, 2007; 6:26 PM

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.


Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report.".....


Yoni you are so blinded by your partisanship you probably have justified only providing 1 sentence of this article to prove a point... this is pretty pathetic and intellectually dishonest

[xrayzebra]

It may be working but pardon us for not immediately taking the word of the administration as being completely truthful.

Reid was shown stating: The surge is not working. That
was just after the surge was announced. He has also
stated we have lost in Iraq. And some are still saying it.
Next on their agenda, yeah, well the military has done a
good job but the political benchmarks haven't been
attained. You know some of that good dimm-o-crap
truthfullness......
:p:

[George Gervin's Afro]

Reid was shown stating: The surge is not working. That
was just after the surge was announced. He has also
stated we have lost in Iraq. And some are still saying it.
Next on their agenda, yeah, well the military has done a
good job but the political benchmarks haven't been
attained. You know some of that good dimm-o-crap
truthfullness......
:p:


Can we at leat wait until Petreus releases his report before we start running around telling everyone it's working. I'm willing to wait but I am not willing to take your or Yoni's word on it.

[xrayzebra]

Gee GGA, I sorry I broke the spell for you. NYT and a couple of
dimms just finally joined Yoni and I. Not the other way round.

But you can wait if you wont. Take your time. We know you have
a hard time understanding things. That is why we type slow so
you can read it and hopefully have a little understanding.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Gee GGA, I sorry I broke the spell for you. NYT and a couple of
dimms just finally joined Yoni and I. Not the other way round.

But you can wait if you wont. Take your time. We know you have
a hard time understanding things. That is why we type slow so
you can read it and hopefully have a little understanding.


So your not going to wait for the report ot be released? Oh wait..you still believe there are stockpiles of wmds.... nevermind

so can I get you committed to saying that what the NY Times writes is truth? Great! Now we can use them as gospel...

Ray you have been wrong for over 4 yrs now... earth to ray..earth to ray..

[Yonivore]

Can we at leat wait until Petreus releases his report before we start running around telling everyone it's working. I'm willing to wait but I am not willing to take your or Yoni's word on it.
Hey, they weren't my words. It was two fellows from the liberal Brookings Institute writing in the freakin' New York Times. Then, you had a Democrat (presumably left of center but, admittedly, I don't know), also saying the surge is have positive results -- and lamenting how bad that was for Democrats, no less.

Don't blame me.

[boutons_]

"just wants that oil on the market to avoid an economic meltdown caused by high oil prices (we've experienced a part of it), not that they want it under US control."

The Repugs love high oil and gas prices since it enriches the oilcos, that in turn have $Ms to lobby with and to give to political campaigns.

One of the authors on Wolf Blitzer said he and his co-author did not write the headline and do not agree with it, disown the headline.

The NYT paid these guys for the trip and the article and published it, proving the NYT is incapable of reporting the facts.

The article says very clearly that in spite of positive signs, it's only a tiny beginning in the military area, with NO progress being seen in the political area, which dubya and Petraeus both say in the more important area.

Iraq infrastructure still remains a disaster, and NO MORE US FUNDS are available for another go at re-building Iraq.

And the Iraqi parliament has gone on vacation, probably out of Iraq and with all vacation expenses paid by the govt.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Hey, they weren't my words. It was two fellows from the liberal Brookings Institute writing in the freakin' New York Times. Then, you had a Democrat (presumably left of center but, admittedly, I don't know), also saying the surge is have positive results -- and lamenting how bad that was for Democrats, no less.

Don't blame me.



Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.

isn't this what you have been asking for? time for Petraeus to get back to us? That's what is going on and it's still not good enough for you.. sheesh

[Yonivore]

isn't this what you have been asking for? time for Petraeus to get back to us? That's what is going on and it's still not good enough for you.. sheesh
That is not what's going on. The Left is not waiting before declaring the war lost. You don't believe that should be countered?

We should just let Harry Reid, et. al. go on pushing for surrender and making declarations about how bad things in Iraq are without anyone contradicting them?

Yes, I'm willing to wait for the Petreaus report but, when something quite extraordinary occurs -- as in the case of liberals and liberal institutions actually reporting good news from Iraq -- I think it's right to point it out.

I think you're like Clyburn and are afraid of what good news from Iraq means for the partisan political narrative the left has been pushing for the past few years.

Already, we're seeing a climb in the polls for both the President and Americans' views on the war in Iraq.

[boutons_]

"The Left is not waiting before declaring the war lost."

Left? plenty of people left, center, right of center see Iraq as hopeless. Check the polls you don't like to believe. The Iraq war is extremely unpopular, people want it reduced or shut down. The people are sovereign, not dubya and dickhead.

"something quite extraordinary occurs"

for which the NYT gets no credit for financing and reporting.

"something quite extraordinary occurs"

... after 4 years of total failure, anything positive out of Iraq is "something quite extraordinary occurs"

The two authoris say there is a long way to go, militarily, infrastrucurally, and above all politically, buy Yoni is extrapolated tiny good news into TOTAL VICTORY.

Petraeus will of course inflate his report with positives. It's his career and reputation, and he known is a politicized ass-kisser of dubya.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That is not what's going on. The Left is not waiting before declaring the war lost. You don't believe that should be countered?

We should just let Harry Reid, et. al. go on pushing for surrender and making declarations about how bad things in Iraq are without anyone contradicting them?

Yes, I'm willing to wait for the Petreaus report but, when something quite extraordinary occurs -- as in the case of liberals and liberal institutions actually reporting good news from Iraq -- I think it's right to point it out.

I think you're like Clyburn and are afraid of what good news from Iraq means for the partisan political narrative the left has been pushing for the past few years.

Already, we're seeing a climb in the polls for both the President and Americans' views on the war in Iraq.

Americans still don't consider Iraq as a part of the war on terror. Since the definition of 'victory' has evolved I would think those same people who would try and paint the left as wrong will have to defend their evolutionary stance as well. The dems could easily turn around and point out what certain republicans said about victory 4 yrs ago and reconcile with a watered down version of victory is today. people want out of Iraq... what you fail to acknowledge is that we have already won the war..it is the post war that we have failed on... I would not guess that in the initial phases of post war Iraq you , or any other war whore, would be proclaiming that an Islamic based democracy that will align itsel with Iran would be a victory..I guess it's all about saving face now... I hope the surge is working so we can get out of Iraq..I wonder where you get the impression that I am worried about the surge working.. I hope it is so we can stop wasting our resources on a country that will turn it's back on us as soon as we leave.. You may think this sacrifice is worth it but if Iraq turns into an advisery, as opposed to an ally, your party should never be in control again..




I think you're like Clyburn and are afraid of what good news from Iraq means for the partisan political narrative the left has been pushing for the past few years.

what are you talking about? How is it that most polling shows that 70% of Americans who want out of Iraq will came back and punsih those trying to get out of Iraq? Your looking at this from your partisan blinded goggles..

[fyatuk]

The Repugs love high oil and gas prices since it enriches the oilcos, that in turn have $Ms to lobby with and to give to political campaigns.


I can see where that might be true, considering over 80% of campaign contributions from oil industry individuals and PACS go to republicans, but please keep in mind that the oil industry ranked 16th in terms of total donations for campaigns in both 2004 and 2006. No single oil company ranked in the top 100 contributors in 2004.

If you're curious:

for 2006 (NOTE, this includes both PAC and individual donations):
oil companies ranked 16th, giving $19m, 82% of which went to republicans.
Building Trade Unions ranked 19th, giving $17m, 84% Dem
Industrial Unions ranked 30, giving $12m, 97% Dem
Lawyers ranked 2nd, giving $124m, 70% Dem
Lobbyists ranked 12th, giving $23m, 57% Rep.

Interestingly, historically lobbyists hover around 50/50, except in the first 6 years of Clinton, where there were over 70% Dem.

I think you are vastly overassuming the strength of the oil cos lobbying efforts and influence...

[clambake]

This report was completed and memorized months ago.

[Yonivore]

Americans still don't consider Iraq as a part of the war on terror.
Your entire disjointed and rambling response hinges on this statement. If this is not true, then the rest of your argument is meaningless.

So, regardless of what "Americans" may or may not consider about Iraq -- depending on where and how they choose to inform themselves -- the war in Iraq is central to the war on terror.

In fact, it is the American left, through their advancing the anti-war narrative over the past four yearst by which most Americans (who don't associate Iraq with the war on terror) have come to that belief.

Al Qaeda believes Iraq is central to the war on terror. Iraq believes the war, in their country, is central to the war on terror. Republicans + Joe Lieberman believe Iraq is central to the war on terror. And, our allies around the world, believe Iraq is central to the war on terror.

I think it is you and your ilk that are late to the party here. But, you go ahead and hang on to that article of faith.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Your entire disjointed and rambling response hinges on this statement. If this is not true, then the rest of your argument is meaningless.

So, regardless of what "Americans" may or may not consider about Iraq -- depending on where and how they choose to inform themselves -- the war in Iraq is central to the war on terror.

In fact, it is the American left, through their advancing the anti-war narrative over the past four yearst by which most Americans (who don't associate Iraq with the war on terror) have come to that belief.

Al Qaeda believes Iraq is central to the war on terror. Iraq believes the war, in their country, is central to the war on terror. Republicans + Joe Lieberman believe Iraq is central to the war on terror. And, our allies around the world, believe Iraq is central to the war on terror.














I think it is you and your ilk that are late to the party here. But, you go ahead and hang on to that article of faith.


Well most people don't consider Iraq as a part of the war on terror... so my argument stands.. I really hope the republicans try that crap because I would love to play the soundbites about how we would be greeted as liberators.. etc..better yet dusting off all of the soundbites of how wrong Bush and his war whores were from the beginning and give the American people a choice. Do you trust the party that got you into a mess that they created and tried to blame everybody else f..or the party that was trying to clean that problem up .. I look forward to it..



please tell me what party we are late too?

[Yonivore]

Well most people don't consider Iraq as a part of the war on terror... so my argument stands..
That doesn't make it right.


I really hope the republicans try that crap because I would love to play the soundbites about how we would be greeted as liberators..
We were greeted as liberators. You might recall, the sectarian violence didn't erupt for some time after Baghdad fell. In fact, the general concensus, among those who believe Iraq is central to the war on terror, is that it was during the relative calm after the regime was toppled that foreign fighters poured into the country, met up with internal insurgents and planned their course of action that soon became the insurgency.


etc..better yet dusting off all of the soundbites of how wrong Bush and his war whores were from the beginning and give the American people a choice. Do you trust the party that got you into a mess that they created and triend to blame everybody else for it ..or the party that was trying to clean that problem up .. I look forward to it..
I think the American people will be forgiving of a president that took the proper course of action while, at the same time, prevented attacks here and oversaw an economic boom to boot.

The American people will come to the same conclusions as Michael David Hanson:


In a wider sense, the war is as most wars: an evolution from blunders to wisdom, with the side that makes the fewest and learns from them the most eventually winning. Al Qaeda and the insurgents in 2004-6 developed the means, both tactical and strategic, to thwart the reconstruction, but we, not they, have since learned the more and evolved.

As in the Civil War, WWI, and WWII, the present American military — which has committed far less mistakes than past American forces — has shifted tactics, redefined strategy, and found the right field commanders. We forget that the U.S. Army and Marines, far from being broken, now have the most experienced and wizened officers in the world. Like Summer 1864, Summer 1918, and in the Pacific 1944-5, the key is the support of a weary public for an ever improving military that must nevertheless endure a final storm before breaking the enemy.

The irony is that should President Bush endure the hysteria and furor and prove able to give the gifted Gen. Petraeus the necessary time — and I think he will — his presidency could still turn out to be Trumanesque, once we digest the changes in Europe, the progress on North Korea, the end of both the Taliban and Saddam, and the prevention of another 9/11 attack. How odd that all the insider advice to triangulate — big spending, new programs, uninspired appointments, liberal immigration reform — have nearly wrecked the administration, and what were once considered its liabilities — foreign policy, the war on terror and Iraq — may still save it.

please tell me what party we are late too?
The truth.

[Yonivore]

From The Belmont Club (http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/07/making-it-up-as-you-go-along.html):


Making it up as you go along
The Educated Soldier (http://educatedsoldier.blogspot.com/2007/07/paradise-baghdad.html) recalls the calm days after the fall of Baghdad.



The level of calm that immediately followed the downfall of the Baathist regime in Baghdad was remarkable. It now seems asinine to suggest that the following events occurred, but they did. My unit used to travel to city center Baghdad, abandon our Humvees but to a couple rotating guards, drop all of our protective gear, enter restaurants and eat full-service meals. Imagine this: I used to travel to this same area of the city and receive a haircut from an Iraqi barber who would wield a straight-edged blade without so much of a raised eyebrow from my compatriots. There was even an instance that our Humvee, by its lonesome, left the Baghdad International Airport after escorting an official and traversed the streets of Baghdad in search of pirated DVDs. Occasionally, I will tell stories of complacency, of soldiers asleep while behind the gun atop a Humvee, that occurred during this period and then wonder how I ever let one partake in such lazy and dangerous activity. And then it occurs to me that this sort of activity was a product of the environment that we then knew. ...
So this raises many questions that I have yet to hear quality answers. The answers lack, in part, because this is now a forgotten part of Iraq history. But this soldier, nonetheless, wonders, “What happened?” There was a notable period of time in Iraq between the fall of the government in Baghdad and the beginning of the greater insurgency conflict as we now understand it, which was void of violence. Why was this? Did the “bag guys” really need a month to two to regroup and retaliate? Or was it the case that, during this two month gap, combatants from outside the country were being filtered in?

I have no good answers. I hope, however, that by continuing to spread the experiences that I remember, some may come to pass. And, hopefully, these answers can go a long way in helping us understand the enemy that we currently face.

My own guess is that the subsequent violence was the result of two things. As soon as Saddam fell, forces opposed to the US began to plan and execute their riposte with remarkable speed. Ex-regime elements, Islamists etc. began to make their move. In contrast, the Coalition was unable to both take control of the post-Saddam situation and respond to enemy countermoves. There followed a period in which the Coalition was forced on the defensive all across Iraq. And that continued until the Coalition was eventually able to learn, adapt and regain some initiative.

The stories related by the Educated Soldier illustrate the lack of continuity in the script. Having defeated the Iraqi Army, the idea was that it was "over". In retrospect things had only just begun. But not only was the force mentally unprepared for what came next, it was physically and organizationally unready. There were inadequate numbers of interpreters; I suspect that intelligence networks were underdeveloped; probably most importantly, the force was unfamiliar with Iraq. When the trouble began, much of the attention focused on the "armor" gap. The striking difference between 2003 and 2007 is not the lack of steel plate on the Humvees -- something which obsessed the media for a long time -- but the difference in attitude and doctrine between that era and Gen Petraeus' force.

The fateful decision of Paul Bremer to dismantle Saddam's Army may have saved Iraq from a continuation of the fallen regime under other color; it might have avoided a Shi'ite insurgency that may have developed in response; it might had many things to commend it in the long run. But off-handedly dismantling the ancien regime without the Coalition capability to take up the slack meant that for some years it would be operating in a debatable void. It was as if the forces on the ground had to jump out of an airplane without a parachute and only a bale of silk from which they were expected to knit their own as they plummeted through the air and hopefully finish before they hit the ground. Policy makers may not have been aware they were doing it, but therein lies a tale.

Yet fundamentally, I don't know the answer to Educated Soldier's questions. And apart from the few facile speculations I've sketched out it remains a stark and valid challenge, not simply to historians, but to operators and policy makers. The parachute isn't finished yet.

[boutons_]

"sectarian violence didn't erupt for some time after Baghdad fell."

Invasion in March, dubya's fake-crotch/fake-flyboy/Mission Accomplished in May.

The violence started in about May or June, associated with the Repug asshole Bremer disbanding the Iraqi army and police and dumping several 100K men into the unemployed rolls. Just fucking brilliant.

No matter when the violence started, dubya was NOT prepared to handle it, didn't even foresee it, and 4 years later still doesn't have it under control.

Iraq is not central to the war on terror, now or ever, except in dubya's talking points and in the echo from Yoni.

The war on terror is/was in Aghanistan which was abandoned by the US (no oil in Afghanistan) and now in the Paki FATAs.

AQI, which didn't exist until dubya broke Iraq, is fighting a guerilla/unconventional war against the US and Shiites.

[fyatuk]

"sectarian violence didn't erupt for some time after Baghdad fell."

Invasion in March, dubya's fake-crotch/fake-flyboy/Mission Accomplished in May.

The violence started in about May or June, associated with the Repug asshole Bremer disbanding the Iraqi army and police and dumping several 100K men into the unemployed rolls. Just fucking brilliant.

No matter when the violence started, dubya was NOT prepared to handle it, didn't even foresee it, and 4 years later still doesn't have it under control.

Iraq is not central to the war on terror, now or ever, except in dubya's talking points and in the echo from Yoni.

The war on terror is/was in Aghanistan which was abandoned by the US (no oil in Afghanistan) and now in the Paki FATAs.

AQI, which didn't exist until dubya broke Iraq, is fighting a guerilla/unconventional war against the US and Shiites.

The covers the Democrat party line about as well as Yoni covers the Republican.

[Yonivore]

It's a cardinal rule in Washington, for reporters and politicians: never let yourself fall behind a scandal, story or trend.

That's why we're starting to see a "recalibration" on Iraq by members of the mainstream media, and even some Democrats in Congress. A shift appears to be underway inside the Beltway, with reporters and pols saying things about Iraq that were unimaginable just a few weeks ago. Look for more to join their ranks in the coming weeks, ahead of the September report by our top ground commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus.

Obviously, this doesn't mean that Congressional Democrats and the chattering class are going to suddenly endorse the war effort, or proclaim that George W. Bush was right all along. Instead, this recalibration is designed to preserve credibility for the MSM (or more correctly, what little credibility they have left), and provide some maneuvering room for Democratic politicians.

In other words, they've seen the hand-writing on the wall. After proclaiming the troop surge a failure, they're now confronted by a new reality: the strategy is actually working, creating a strong case for continuing the effort into 2008, and (possibly) beyond. Making matters worse, evidence of the strategy's effectiveness was detailed in both The New York Times and the Washington Post--in less than a week.

The Times op-ed, written by two analysts from the liberal Brookings Institution, proclaimed that "we are finally getting somewhere in Iraq," while the Post highlighted the growing numbers of Iraqis who are joining security forces and fighting terrorists. General Petraeus describes this as "the most significant trend" in Iraq over the last four months or so.

Gains described by the Times and Post are likely to find their way into Petraeus's upcoming report, so that puts the MSM (and their Democratic friends) in a difficult position. Unable to refute the evidence that General Petraeus will offer, they're staking out a "modified" position, moving away from their early proclamations about the "failure" of the surge. Little wonder that panelists on Chris Matthews' weekend show -- all card-carrying members of the establishment media -- were discussing why the U.S. shouldn't leave Iraq too soon.

Then, there's this little item from today's edition of the Post, suggesting a similar shift among some Congressional Democrats. Interviewed during one of the paper's webcasts, House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina said that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by General David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war. And, in a rare display of full political disclosure, Clyburn said that a generally positive report would be "a real big problem for us." He also urged House Democrats to "wait for the Petraeus report" before charting their next move in the battle over Iraq strategy.

Congressman Clyburn's comments are a thinly-veiled warning to other members of the Democratic Caucus and party activists who've been pushing for a rapid U.S. retreat from Iraq. He indicates that a positive report from Petraeus might cause members of the "Blue Dog" caucus to jump ship, making it virtually impossible to pass legislation aimed at reducing troop levels, or defunding the war effort. In the mean time, he's urging his party's anti-war wing (in other words, the majority of Democrats) to keep quiet, and avoid bucking possible evolutions in their "official" policy.

It's hard to imagine that most voters would accept -- let alone, endorse -- a sudden "change of heart" on Iraq by the Democrats and their cohorts in the MSM. But that will happen (and only reluctantly), if the present, positive trends continue. In the interim, a few reporters and Democratic politicians are trying to have it both ways, getting out in front of an potentially positive report by General Petraeus, while reserving the right to jump back on the anti-war bandwagon if conditions again erode. It's a particularly odious form of recalibration, but it's how media types (and some politicians) try to keep themselves ahead of the curve.

So far, none of the Democratic presidential candidates have followed Clyburn's lead, but it will be interesting to watch their Iraq rhetoric in the run-up to the Petraeus report. As has been postulated, a more "modulated" Democratic position would benefit Hillary, giving her some separation from rivals who've proclaimed their perpetual opposition to the war. That may be true, but Mrs. Clinton still has to reconcile her original vote for the war, and more recent calls to abandon the successful troop surge.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's a cardinal rule in Washington, for reporters and politicians: never let yourself fall behind a scandal, story or trend.

That's why we're starting to see a "recalibration" on Iraq by members of the mainstream media, and even some Democrats in Congress. A shift appears to be underway inside the Beltway, with reporters and pols saying things about Iraq that were unimaginable just a few weeks ago. Look for more to join their ranks in the coming weeks, ahead of the September report by our top ground commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus.

Obviously, this doesn't mean that Congressional Democrats and the chattering class are going to suddenly endorse the war effort, or proclaim that George W. Bush was right all along. Instead, this recalibration is designed to preserve credibility for the MSM (or more correctly, what little credibility they have left), and provide some maneuvering room for Democratic politicians.

In other words, they've seen the hand-writing on the wall. After proclaiming the troop surge a failure, they're now confronted by a new reality: the strategy is actually working, creating a strong case for continuing the effort into 2008, and (possibly) beyond. Making matters worse, evidence of the strategy's effectiveness was detailed in both The New York Times and the Washington Post--in less than a week.

The Times op-ed, written by two analysts from the liberal Brookings Institution, proclaimed that "we are finally getting somewhere in Iraq," while the Post highlighted the growing numbers of Iraqis who are joining security forces and fighting terrorists. General Petraeus describes this as "the most significant trend" in Iraq over the last four months or so.

Gains described by the Times and Post are likely to find their way into Petraeus's upcoming report, so that puts the MSM (and their Democratic friends) in a difficult position. Unable to refute the evidence that General Petraeus will offer, they're staking out a "modified" position, moving away from their early proclamations about the "failure" of the surge. Little wonder that panelists on Chris Matthews' weekend show -- all card-carrying members of the establishment media -- were discussing why the U.S. shouldn't leave Iraq too soon.

Then, there's this little item from today's edition of the Post, suggesting a similar shift among some Congressional Democrats. Interviewed during one of the paper's webcasts, House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina said that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by General David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war. And, in a rare display of full political disclosure, Clyburn said that a generally positive report would be "a real big problem for us." He also urged House Democrats to "wait for the Petraeus report" before charting their next move in the battle over Iraq strategy.

Congressman Clyburn's comments are a thinly-veiled warning to other members of the Democratic Caucus and party activists who've been pushing for a rapid U.S. retreat from Iraq. He indicates that a positive report from Petraeus might cause members of the "Blue Dog" caucus to jump ship, making it virtually impossible to pass legislation aimed at reducing troop levels, or defunding the war effort. In the mean time, he's urging his party's anti-war wing (in other words, the majority of Democrats) to keep quiet, and avoid bucking possible evolutions in their "official" policy.

It's hard to imagine that most voters would accept -- let alone, endorse -- a sudden "change of heart" on Iraq by the Democrats and their cohorts in the MSM. But that will happen (and only reluctantly), if the present, positive trends continue. In the interim, a few reporters and Democratic politicians are trying to have it both ways, getting out in front of an potentially positive report by General Petraeus, while reserving the right to jump back on the anti-war bandwagon if conditions again erode. It's a particularly odious form of recalibration, but it's how media types (and some politicians) try to keep themselves ahead of the curve.

So far, none of the Democratic presidential candidates have followed Clyburn's lead, but it will be interesting to watch their Iraq rhetoric in the run-up to the Petraeus report. As has been postulated, a more "modulated" Democratic position would benefit Hillary, giving her some separation from rivals who've proclaimed their perpetual opposition to the war. That may be true, but Mrs. Clinton still has to reconcile her original vote for the war, and more recent calls to abandon the successful troop surge.


Bush right all along? about what?
wmds?
no post war plan?

[Yonivore]

Bush right all along? about what?
wmds?
no post war plan?
About Iraq being central to the war on terror.

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/31/mullen.hearing.ap/index.html


Mullen acknowledged that slow progress in Iraq is hurting U.S. credibility and encouraging Iran's regional ambitions.

He said it's important to see results more than four years into the war. Some 160,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq, and more than 3,640 Americans have been killed.
"A protracted deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq, with no change in the security situation, risks further emboldening Iranian hegemonic ambitions and encourages their continued support to Shia insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan," Mullen wrote.

Mullen, the chief of naval operations, was chosen to replace Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace as the nation's top military officer.

He must not want to win Iraq... :rolleyes

[Yonivore]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/31/mullen.hearing.ap/index.html

He must not want to win Iraq... :rolleyes
Why do you say that? What he said is true.

[xrayzebra]

Okay, no problem now for the dimm-o-crap liberals. Murtha
has made the pronouncement that it is all BS. The surge isn't
working, no way, Jose.......end of story. You all can go back
to the offense and kicking Bush.

[Yonivore]

Okay, no problem now for the dimm-o-crap liberals. Murtha
has made the pronouncement that it is all BS. The surge isn't
working, no way, Jose.......end of story. You all can go back
to the offense and kicking Bush.
Really? Did Murtha actually say that?

[xrayzebra]

Really? Did Murtha actually say that?

Yep Rush had his statement on the air today.

[Yonivore]

Yep Rush had his statement on the air today.
He must not have gotten the memo...

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yep Rush had his statement on the air today.

:lol :lol :lol :lol
what else did hush tell you today?

[xrayzebra]

:lol :lol :lol :lol
what else did hush tell you today?

He didn't tell me anything. Just quoted some
dimm-o-craptic idiots like Murtha......listen sometimes,
you may get an education. Oh, and he is what he says
he is. An entertainer, making big bucks.

[George Gervin's Afro]

He didn't tell me anything. Just quoted some
dimm-o-craptic idiots like Murtha......listen sometimes,
you may get an education. Oh, and he is what he says
he is. An entertainer, making big bucks.


And I am sure that he played Murtha's entire comment from beginning to end. or did you just hear a sentence or two? Come on ray think man!

[Yonivore]

And I am sure that he played Murtha's entire comment from beginning to end. or did you just hear a sentence or two? Come on ray think man!
I'd like to see the quote, in it's context, as well.

[xrayzebra]

And I am sure that he played Murtha's entire comment from beginning to end. or did you just hear a sentence or two? Come on ray think man!


You look it up. Non-believer........he is your man.

[Yonivore]

You look it up. Non-believer........he is your man.
I've tried to find it by googling, no luck yet.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You look it up. Non-believer........he is your man.


I didn't think you heard the whole comment. Wouldn't that be more honest Ray? To listen to the whole statement in context?

[Yonivore]

I didn't think you heard the whole comment. Wouldn't that be more honest Ray? To listen to the whole statement in context?
Well, to be fair, some statements stand on their own. Listening to the entire statement may not change the characterization that Murtha believes the surge is a failure but, I'd like to see the quote for myself.

I don't listen to Rush and I'm not a subscriber to his website so, I'm limited in what I can discover. Googling "Murtha Surge" is only producing dated material.

[xrayzebra]

Here is the damn link you folks are so worried about. Took about
30 seconds to find it. It also has a video with it. Enjoy.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/31/murtha-ohanlon/

[Yonivore]

I'll watch it later, I'm standing in a crowded, noisy, line and forgot my earphones.

Murtha says success is an "illusion" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSloxwWcte4)

[Yonivore]

Here is the damn link you folks are so worried about. Took about
30 seconds to find it. It also has a video with it. Enjoy.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/31/murtha-ohanlon/
Calm down. It's good to post sources.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It's good to post sources.

thanks for the new sig

[Yonivore]

thanks for the new sig
Have fun with it. I don't have sigs or avatars turned on anyway.

[George Gervin's Afro]

In his opening remarks, Brown said: "I strongly support President Bush's initiative, a bold initiative to make early progress in the Middle East peace process. Afghanistan is the front line against terrorism, and as we have done twice in the last year, where there are more forces needed to back up the coalition and NATO effort, they have been provided by the United Kingdom."

Maybe we need to get brown in contact with Yoni because Iraq is the central fron to the war on terror.. :rolleyes

[boutons_]

"Afghanistan is the front line against terrorism,"

With Brown saying that, and withdrawing UK troops for Iraq, Brown is clearly distancing the UK from Blair's stance, and from the US, ie, he's putting the UK govt actions much more in line with the UK public's positions.

[xrayzebra]

"Afghanistan is the front line against terrorism,"

With Brown saying that, and withdrawing UK troops for Iraq, Brown is clearly distancing the UK from Blair's stance, and from the US, ie, he's putting the UK govt actions much more in line with the UK's public's positions.


Has he made such an announcement that he is withdrawing
troops. I thought he said he was going to go with his
Generals?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Has he made such an announcement that he is withdrawing
troops. I thought he said he was going to go with his
Generals?


To be honest brown has never specifically said that he is withdrawing troops from Iraq any time soon. At least that I am aware of..

[boutons_]

I haven't seen anything about Brown pulling troops out of UK, yet. He is saying he will do so in the UK's interests, independently of what the US will be doing.

There is a local withdrawal of UK forces.

==============

British Pullback in Iraq Presages Hurdles for U.S.

By STEPHEN FARRELL

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/world/middleeast/29basra.html

BASRA, Iraq As American troop levels are peaking in Baghdad, British force levels are heading in the opposite direction as the troops prepare to withdraw completely from the city center of Basra, 300 miles to the south.

The British intend to pull back to an airport headquarters miles out of town, a symbolic move widely taken by Iraqis as the beginning of the end of the British military presence in southern Iraq.

The scaling down by America’s largest coalition partner foreshadows many of the political and military challenges certain to face American commanders when their troops begin withdrawing.

Skepticism is widespread in Basra, as in Baghdad, about whether Iraqi forces are ready to take over. The British and the Americans will have to assuage the fears of Iraqis that they are being abandoned to gunmen and religious extremists. And each is likely to face intensified attacks from propaganda-conscious enemies trying to claim credit for driving out the Westerners.

As the British prepare for the withdrawal from the city center and the wider transition of handing over Basra Province to Iraqi security forces during the coming months Brig. James Bashall, commander of the First Mechanized Brigade, concedes that his men will almost certainly “get a lot of indirect fire as we go backward.”

It is no coincidence that he is reading up on Britain’s withdrawal from its former crown colony Aden in what is now Yemen, and lessons from other theaters, with the American experience in Vietnam as the “obvious parallel.”

Rear Adm. Mark I. Fox, an American military spokesman in Baghdad, parried any suggestion that Basra was a model for the Americans.

“I think that our focus right now is on the operations that we are conducting,” he said. “Certainly that’s the thing that is in front of us right now, and I wouldn’t characterize us as necessarily peeking over the shoulders of somebody else to see how they are doing it.”

The British commanders studiously avoid talk of dates for the same reason American commanders are resisting such pressure in Congress they fear it would embolden insurgents. But it has escaped no one’s notice that Britain’s new prime minister, Gordon Brown, could score political points by withdrawing from an unpopular war.

The British pullback, and British commanders’ talk of moving toward “overwatch,” and intervening “in a limited sense” if requested by the Iraqis, is viewed with dismay by many Iraqis in the city.

Mustapha Wali, a 49-year-old teacher, was blunt. “If they withdraw, we will live in a jungle, like the early days,” he said. “The parties control the government, and the aim of officials is to fill their pockets with money, millions of dollars inside their pockets and nothing to the city.”

The educated and secular middle classes fear that the Iraqi security forces particularly the police are hopelessly infiltrated by the extremist Shiite militias and Iranian-backed Islamist parties competing, often murderously, for control of Basra’s huge oil wealth.

Basra, an overwhelmingly Shiite port city controlling Iraq’s gateway to the Persian Gulf, is much less affected by the Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence plaguing Baghdad. But, as a June 25 report by the International Crisis Group concluded, it is virtually controlled by Shiite militias.

Since the 2003 invasion, the British-led coalition forces have adopted a far less aggressive and interventionist stance than American troops have farther north. Some contend that this was the only realistic approach, with far fewer troops at their disposal and a more benign environment.

But critics accuse the British of simply allowing the Shiite militias free rein to carry out their intolerant Islamist agenda, which involved killing merchants who sell alcohol, driving out Christians and infiltrating state institutions and the security forces.

“The British are very patient they didn’t know how to deal with the militias,” said a 50-year-old Assyrian Christian who would identify herself only as Mrs. Mansour. “Some people think it would be better if the Americans came instead of the British. They would be harder on the militias.”

The report by the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit organization that seeks to prevent or resolve deadly conflicts, concedes that a recent British-led crackdown was a “qualified success” in reducing criminality, political assassinations and sectarian killings, yet nevertheless concludes that Basra “is an example of what to avoid.”

It said the British had been driven into “increasingly secluded compounds,” a result, the report said, that was viewed by Basra’s residents and militia as an “ignominious defeat.”

British and Iraqi leaders point out that although there have been problems with intimidation and infiltration, particularly of the Iraqi police, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has appointed new police and army commanders in recent months to take charge of the city. And the officials say there are encouraging signs.

But certainly a city that was once relatively safe for British troops is no longer.

Where they once patrolled in soft hats and open-topped vehicles, soldiers now move in heavily armored vehicles and are regularly attacked with mortar shells, rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs.

This year is already the most deadly since 2003 for British forces in Iraq, with 36 killed as of Saturday. Sixty-one rockets and mortar shells rained down on the palace in one day last week, a record high.

In such an environment, say British commanders, removing the troops from the city center takes away a “magnet” for attacks, and deprives the Mahdi Army, led by Moktada al-Sadr, and other Iranian-backed militias of a cause to justify their continued violence. Instead there will be a transition to control by Iraqis.

When the withdrawal from the palace is complete, there will be 5,000 British soldiers here, 500 fewer than before.

Although American commanders are sure to watch the British pullout closely, there are distinct differences between the military situations in the north and south.

“Basra is a totally different environment from what the Americans are facing,” said a British official in Basra. “The problem here is gangsterism, not violent sectarianism. And a foreign military is not the right tool for closing down a mafia.”

“A Baghdad-style surge would be 100 percent counterproductive,” he added.

Nevertheless, everyone expects attacks to intensify, and soldiers have cautionary tales for American generals looking ahead to an eventual drawing down of troop levels.

On May 25, Basra’s small Permanent Joint Coordination Center a joint British-Iraqi base in the city’s center came under sustained attack by militias enraged by the killing of a senior Mahdi Army commander that day.

The lesson drawn by soldiers inside was that the militias had carefully watched the reduced British troop movements around the city, noticed where they were no longer patrolling and prepared accordingly.

Cpl. Daniel Jennings, 26, said the Mahdi Army appeared to have stockpiled rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns in advance.

“What they did was very well planned,” he said. “They knew they could pre-dump weapons and ammo. They knew that if they hid R.P.G.’s under a bridge or a gun under a tree it wasn’t going to be found.”

During one army patrol in a village overlooked by the palace’s watchtowers, built during the Saddam Hussein era, residents were confused to find themselves in the cross-fire between the Mahdi Army and the British.

Picking from his car shrapnel from what appeared to be an errant rocket fired at the palace, Mohammed, 20, said he was angry at the militias for using the villagers’ houses as cover to fire, but also at the British for firing back and damaging the homes.

“We are caught in the middle,” he said.” At the start the American and British forces came and the situation was much better, but now it is beginning to get worse.”

Another Iraqi youth, when asked what the Iraqi police were doing about roadside bombs intended for British troops, said, “The police are the ones who are doing it.”

In Basra itself one 26-year-old Mahdi Army fighter was unequivocal about what he wanted. “I hope to see them withdraw today, before tomorrow,” he said.

But for most, it is an issue heavily shaded in gray.

“Some people are asking, ‘Are we any longer part of the solution, or part of the problem?’ ” said Capt. Toby Skinner, 26, of the Fourth Battalion, the Rifles Regiment, in Basra. “An Iraqi told me: ‘You stay here for three years you will be our friend. You stay for four years, you will be our enemy.’ ”

Riyadh, a 22-year-old Iraqi and Basra native who is an interpreter for the British, expressed little confidence that the Iraqi Army was ready to take over from his paymasters, and none at all in the Iraqi police.

“Right now the militias are busy concentrating on getting the British Army out of Iraq,” he said. “After that is done they will turn on the people and try to control them in a very difficult way.”

“They will kill people who don’t do what they want,” he added. “There will be no punishment by courts; they kill people on the streets.”

But he acknowledged that if British troops stayed they would be sucked into further deadly confrontations with militias using civilians as cover, leading to inevitable innocent casualties and more hostility.

( sounds like the situation for Basra is damned whether the British stay or withdraw, like all of Iraq. Iraq will have its civil war no matter what, sooner or later )

“If they leave, the militias will eventually fall apart,” he said. “There will be no reason to join them because they will not be fighting the British Army.”

This is what the British hope, but cannot guarantee, will happen.

At Basra Palace, the rocket attacks at all hours of the day and night have led soldiers to christen it, with characteristic dark humor, “probably the worst palace in the world.”

Despite the rocket-shredded roof and garden labyrinth of head-high sandbags, morale remains high. However, some soldiers question their continued presence in the city center.

“I don’t see the point,” shrugged Trooper Charles Culshaw, 21, an armored vehicle driver. “ We are training the Iraqi Army and doing a couple of bits and pieces that are useful, but I don’t think it’s worth it, to be honest with you.”

“All we are doing now is resupplying ourselves,” he said. “It’s going round in circles. People are getting killed for us to resupply ourselves, and if we weren’t resupplying ourselves, people wouldn’t be getting killed.”

Unsurprisingly, Lt. Col. Patrick Sanders, commander of the Fourth Battalion, the Rifles Regiment, has a different view.

“If that were true and that were all we were doing, then I would be saying the same thing, but it’s not,” he said, pointing to recent battles in which the British had killed at least 100 insurgents.

But while such raids will continue against wanted men, a speedy transition to a Basra run by Iraqis is the game in this town.

“I think that the route is one of reconciliation, and that means taking some risk,” Lieutenant Colonel Sanders said. “The other option is that we do what has been done in the past and what is being done elsewhere, which is to thrash around killing people by the dozen because they are attacking us. But I’m not sure that is constructive.”

Mudhafer al-Husaini contributed reporting from Baghdad.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I haven't seen anything about Brown pulling troops out of UK, yet. He is saying he will do so in the UK's interests, independently of what the US will be doing.

There is a local withdrawal of UK forces.

==============

British Pullback in Iraq Presages Hurdles for U.S.

By STEPHEN FARRELL

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/world/middleeast/29basra.html

BASRA, Iraq As American troop levels are peaking in Baghdad, British force levels are heading in the opposite direction as the troops prepare to withdraw completely from the city center of Basra, 300 miles to the south.

The British intend to pull back to an airport headquarters miles out of town, a symbolic move widely taken by Iraqis as the beginning of the end of the British military presence in southern Iraq.

The scaling down by America’s largest coalition partner foreshadows many of the political and military challenges certain to face American commanders when their troops begin withdrawing.

Skepticism is widespread in Basra, as in Baghdad, about whether Iraqi forces are ready to take over. The British and the Americans will have to assuage the fears of Iraqis that they are being abandoned to gunmen and religious extremists. And each is likely to face intensified attacks from propaganda-conscious enemies trying to claim credit for driving out the Westerners.

As the British prepare for the withdrawal from the city center and the wider transition of handing over Basra Province to Iraqi security forces during the coming months Brig. James Bashall, commander of the First Mechanized Brigade, concedes that his men will almost certainly “get a lot of indirect fire as we go backward.”

It is no coincidence that he is reading up on Britain’s withdrawal from its former crown colony Aden in what is now Yemen, and lessons from other theaters, with the American experience in Vietnam as the “obvious parallel.”

Rear Adm. Mark I. Fox, an American military spokesman in Baghdad, parried any suggestion that Basra was a model for the Americans.

“I think that our focus right now is on the operations that we are conducting,” he said. “Certainly that’s the thing that is in front of us right now, and I wouldn’t characterize us as necessarily peeking over the shoulders of somebody else to see how they are doing it.”

The British commanders studiously avoid talk of dates for the same reason American commanders are resisting such pressure in Congress they fear it would embolden insurgents. But it has escaped no one’s notice that Britain’s new prime minister, Gordon Brown, could score political points by withdrawing from an unpopular war.

The British pullback, and British commanders’ talk of moving toward “overwatch,” and intervening “in a limited sense” if requested by the Iraqis, is viewed with dismay by many Iraqis in the city.

Mustapha Wali, a 49-year-old teacher, was blunt. “If they withdraw, we will live in a jungle, like the early days,” he said. “The parties control the government, and the aim of officials is to fill their pockets with money, millions of dollars inside their pockets and nothing to the city.”

The educated and secular middle classes fear that the Iraqi security forces particularly the police are hopelessly infiltrated by the extremist Shiite militias and Iranian-backed Islamist parties competing, often murderously, for control of Basra’s huge oil wealth.

Basra, an overwhelmingly Shiite port city controlling Iraq’s gateway to the Persian Gulf, is much less affected by the Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence plaguing Baghdad. But, as a June 25 report by the International Crisis Group concluded, it is virtually controlled by Shiite militias.

Since the 2003 invasion, the British-led coalition forces have adopted a far less aggressive and interventionist stance than American troops have farther north. Some contend that this was the only realistic approach, with far fewer troops at their disposal and a more benign environment.

But critics accuse the British of simply allowing the Shiite militias free rein to carry out their intolerant Islamist agenda, which involved killing merchants who sell alcohol, driving out Christians and infiltrating state institutions and the security forces.

“The British are very patient they didn’t know how to deal with the militias,” said a 50-year-old Assyrian Christian who would identify herself only as Mrs. Mansour. “Some people think it would be better if the Americans came instead of the British. They would be harder on the militias.”

The report by the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit organization that seeks to prevent or resolve deadly conflicts, concedes that a recent British-led crackdown was a “qualified success” in reducing criminality, political assassinations and sectarian killings, yet nevertheless concludes that Basra “is an example of what to avoid.”

It said the British had been driven into “increasingly secluded compounds,” a result, the report said, that was viewed by Basra’s residents and militia as an “ignominious defeat.”

British and Iraqi leaders point out that although there have been problems with intimidation and infiltration, particularly of the Iraqi police, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has appointed new police and army commanders in recent months to take charge of the city. And the officials say there are encouraging signs.

But certainly a city that was once relatively safe for British troops is no longer.

Where they once patrolled in soft hats and open-topped vehicles, soldiers now move in heavily armored vehicles and are regularly attacked with mortar shells, rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs.

This year is already the most deadly since 2003 for British forces in Iraq, with 36 killed as of Saturday. Sixty-one rockets and mortar shells rained down on the palace in one day last week, a record high.

In such an environment, say British commanders, removing the troops from the city center takes away a “magnet” for attacks, and deprives the Mahdi Army, led by Moktada al-Sadr, and other Iranian-backed militias of a cause to justify their continued violence. Instead there will be a transition to control by Iraqis.

When the withdrawal from the palace is complete, there will be 5,000 British soldiers here, 500 fewer than before.

Although American commanders are sure to watch the British pullout closely, there are distinct differences between the military situations in the north and south.

“Basra is a totally different environment from what the Americans are facing,” said a British official in Basra. “The problem here is gangsterism, not violent sectarianism. And a foreign military is not the right tool for closing down a mafia.”

“A Baghdad-style surge would be 100 percent counterproductive,” he added.

Nevertheless, everyone expects attacks to intensify, and soldiers have cautionary tales for American generals looking ahead to an eventual drawing down of troop levels.

On May 25, Basra’s small Permanent Joint Coordination Center a joint British-Iraqi base in the city’s center came under sustained attack by militias enraged by the killing of a senior Mahdi Army commander that day.

The lesson drawn by soldiers inside was that the militias had carefully watched the reduced British troop movements around the city, noticed where they were no longer patrolling and prepared accordingly.

Cpl. Daniel Jennings, 26, said the Mahdi Army appeared to have stockpiled rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns in advance.

“What they did was very well planned,” he said. “They knew they could pre-dump weapons and ammo. They knew that if they hid R.P.G.’s under a bridge or a gun under a tree it wasn’t going to be found.”

During one army patrol in a village overlooked by the palace’s watchtowers, built during the Saddam Hussein era, residents were confused to find themselves in the cross-fire between the Mahdi Army and the British.

Picking from his car shrapnel from what appeared to be an errant rocket fired at the palace, Mohammed, 20, said he was angry at the militias for using the villagers’ houses as cover to fire, but also at the British for firing back and damaging the homes.

“We are caught in the middle,” he said.” At the start the American and British forces came and the situation was much better, but now it is beginning to get worse.”

Another Iraqi youth, when asked what the Iraqi police were doing about roadside bombs intended for British troops, said, “The police are the ones who are doing it.”

In Basra itself one 26-year-old Mahdi Army fighter was unequivocal about what he wanted. “I hope to see them withdraw today, before tomorrow,” he said.

But for most, it is an issue heavily shaded in gray.

“Some people are asking, ‘Are we any longer part of the solution, or part of the problem?’ ” said Capt. Toby Skinner, 26, of the Fourth Battalion, the Rifles Regiment, in Basra. “An Iraqi told me: ‘You stay here for three years you will be our friend. You stay for four years, you will be our enemy.’ ”

Riyadh, a 22-year-old Iraqi and Basra native who is an interpreter for the British, expressed little confidence that the Iraqi Army was ready to take over from his paymasters, and none at all in the Iraqi police.

“Right now the militias are busy concentrating on getting the British Army out of Iraq,” he said. “After that is done they will turn on the people and try to control them in a very difficult way.”

“They will kill people who don’t do what they want,” he added. “There will be no punishment by courts; they kill people on the streets.”

But he acknowledged that if British troops stayed they would be sucked into further deadly confrontations with militias using civilians as cover, leading to inevitable innocent casualties and more hostility.

( sounds like the situation for Basra is damned whether the British stay or withdraw, like all of Iraq. Iraq will have its civil war no matter what, sooner or later )

“If they leave, the militias will eventually fall apart,” he said. “There will be no reason to join them because they will not be fighting the British Army.”

This is what the British hope, but cannot guarantee, will happen.

At Basra Palace, the rocket attacks at all hours of the day and night have led soldiers to christen it, with characteristic dark humor, “probably the worst palace in the world.”

Despite the rocket-shredded roof and garden labyrinth of head-high sandbags, morale remains high. However, some soldiers question their continued presence in the city center.

“I don’t see the point,” shrugged Trooper Charles Culshaw, 21, an armored vehicle driver. “ We are training the Iraqi Army and doing a couple of bits and pieces that are useful, but I don’t think it’s worth it, to be honest with you.”

“All we are doing now is resupplying ourselves,” he said. “It’s going round in circles. People are getting killed for us to resupply ourselves, and if we weren’t resupplying ourselves, people wouldn’t be getting killed.”

Unsurprisingly, Lt. Col. Patrick Sanders, commander of the Fourth Battalion, the Rifles Regiment, has a different view.

“If that were true and that were all we were doing, then I would be saying the same thing, but it’s not,” he said, pointing to recent battles in which the British had killed at least 100 insurgents.

But while such raids will continue against wanted men, a speedy transition to a Basra run by Iraqis is the game in this town.

“I think that the route is one of reconciliation, and that means taking some risk,” Lieutenant Colonel Sanders said. “The other option is that we do what has been done in the past and what is being done elsewhere, which is to thrash around killing people by the dozen because they are attacking us. But I’m not sure that is constructive.”

Mudhafer al-Husaini contributed reporting from Baghdad.



I have heard of reports he was going to withdraw the UK forces from Iraq. With that being said Mr. brown has not come out and denied those reports either.

[boutons_]

I'm not saying he's going to do it.

I'm pretty sure his statements this week in DC were for UK domestic consumtpion, where the Iraq war is more unpopular than it is in the US. Pretty clear he that he's distancing himself from Blair and distancing the UK from the US's fiascos.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Dayum! First the New York Times and now, a real live Democrat!

I'm not yet persuaded the tide is actually turning in Washington, but this piece by Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html) in the Washington Post provides some grounds for optimism. They report that House Majority Whip James Clyburn says a strongly positive statement progress in Iraq by General Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

According to Clyburn, Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House (i.e., the less than liberal Democrats). Sadly, it's not clear that Petraeus carries as much weight with moderate and liberal Republicans.

As significant as what Clyburn said is the way he said it. According to Clyburn, a strongly positive report by Petraeus would be "a real big problem for us."

Clyburn's candor may be commendable, but it's unfortunate that the Dems regard strongly positive news from Iraq as a problem.


Clyburn's comments came during a "PostTalk" interview with Washington Post reporters Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza (video available on the Post's website). Following is the exchange regarding Petraeus' report:

BALZ: What do Democrats do if General Petraeus comes in in September and says, "This is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it"?

CLYBURN: Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that, simply because of those 47 Blue Dogs. I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us.
So I think we, by and large, would do wise -- be wise to wait on the report. None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that. We love this country. We're as patriotic as anybody else about this. And we have loved ones involved in this issue just like everybody else. I've got family and friends involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so I certainly want to see a good result. But I'm certainly not going to just roll over because the president said. It is only because we get good intelligence from those people like General Patraeus who can be trusted to give us good information.