The al-Ameriki Tribe

So I'm reading the comments at Gateway Pundit and I come across a commenter who says I should do a bit of research on the al-Ameriki tribe. Interesting. So I did a search. And what did I come up with? A wiky entry to start. It is short. So here it is:

The Al-Ameriki tribe is a name (properly, a nickname) given by native Iraqis to United States soldiers and other American personnel occupying Iraq.

That is a start. Perhaps we can find out more.

The wiki suggests this Phil Carter article in Slate. It was written in Nov. of 2007 when things were still looking grim in Iraq. The situation was improving but there was no certainty that a corner had been turned. So lets have a look.

Political reconciliation efforts have produced qualified successes in Anbar, Baghdad, and Diyala. Our security work complemented these political deals by rewarding the sheiks who worked with us, inducing many to stop actively or passively supporting the insurgency. These deals represent the increasing pragmatism of Sunni leaders who realize that the Shiite state is a fait accompli, and they must therefore do what they can to reconcile with each other and with the Americans (who they call the "al-Ameriki tribe") in order to survive.

We have tribal status in Iraq. Interesting.

Michael Yon has more from July of 2007.

The big news on the streets today is that the people of Baqubah are generally ecstatic, although many hold in reserve a serious concern that we will abandon them again. For many Iraqis, we have morphed from being invaders to occupiers to members of a tribe. I call it the “al Ameriki tribe,” or “tribe America.”

I’ve seen this kind of progression in Mosul, out in Anbar and other places, and when I ask our military leaders if they have sensed any shift, many have said, yes, they too sense that Iraqis view us differently. In the context of sectarian and tribal strife, we are the tribe that people can—more or less and with giant caveats—rely on.

Most Iraqis I talk with acknowledge that if it was ever about the oil, it’s not now. Not mostly anyway. It clearly would have been cheaper just to buy the oil or invade somewhere easier that has more. Similarly, most Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here, and that many of us can’t wait to get back home. They realize that we are not resolved to stay, but are impatient to drive down to Kuwait and sail away. And when they consider the Americans who actually deal with Iraqis every day, the Iraqis can no longer deny that we really do want them to succeed. But we want them to succeed without us. We want to see their streets are clean and safe, their grass is green, and their birds are singing. We want to see that on television. Not in person. We don’t want to be here. We tell them that every day. It finally has settled in that we are telling the truth.

Now that all those realizations and more have settled in, the dynamics here are changing in palpable ways.

There is more in his report about how the "insurgency" essentially defeated itself. Insurgencies typically spout high ideals while recruiting criminals. They have to. Criminals are used to evading the government. The question always is: can the criminals be disciplined? Will they follow orders? Will the criminals who have advanced in the organization give good orders? Will they follow the plan? Or will they revert to criminal depredations with the increased power that being part of a shadow government gives them?

In the Iraq insurgency the criminals got the upper hand. It has been their downfall.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

I Link

I haven't linked to Andew Sullivan in ages. Since after he lost his cahones about the War in Iraq. Well I'm linking today. And to what? This article on the changed situation in Iraq, suggested by Jennifer Rubin of Commentary. Via Instapundit. I'm sure this is white hot because in some respects it represents Andrew's return to sanity. We will see if I can shed some light on it from a different angle. Or from the same angle. Depending.

Here is what Andrew Said that got him a link:

Petraeus deserves the lion's share of the credit; luck and time and the self-defeating nihilism of the Jihadists have helped. But Bush and McCain equally merit points for pursuing the surge, even though the metrics pointed to failure. Obama needs to capitalize on these gains, not dismiss them.

Props where they are due. That is an astounding turn around for Andrew. He finally gets it. Even if the War was a mistake a self governing, independent, prosperous Iraq is a good thing.

Now what about Obama? Boy, is the Good Judgement Man™ ever in trouble. He has been talking defeat in Iraq since forever. Whoops. McCain on the other hand has the distinction that, despite the unpopularity of his position, he was right. I predict a pivot - "I never knew how really vile those jihadis were. And I repudiate them for their obvious misjudgment. I have always been in favor of good relations with the Government of Iraq and no Republican is going to stand in the way of my achieving that goal. There are a number of companies in Chicago that would be excellent help in the effort to rebuild Iraq and they will have all my support." Aside to staff: " &#(*^@!~& Axelrod, where are my G-d Damn Tickets to Iraq? "

You know, I don't think Barry is going to have a cake walk.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Is The US Tooling Up For War With Iran?

There is a whole lot to cover on this subject so I'm going to give mostly links and let you make up your own mind. Be sure to read the comments at the links provided as they tend to add information or present countervailing views.

Fleet Positions for War.

We believe the only successful exit strategy from Iraq travels a road through Iran. In general we subscribe to a theory put forth by Stratfor that events will build up towards the brink of war before a peaceful resolution is possible. We don't necessarily believe that is how it has to be, rather we believe that is how our current leadership believes it has to be. Part of that strategy includes the buildup of rhetoric, the shuffling of resources, and the preparation in Iraq for a military action against Iran. We observe these events taking place. Much thanks to Yankee Sailor for his collections regarding the developing time line.

Think Long and Hard as You Contemplate What This Means

There has been a political split in the Pentagon since 2005, when those who wanted to move forward under the cooperative model as opposed to the unilateral model for military action were able to shift the Pentagon position through the release of official strategic papers. Under Gates, the Pentagon has tried to shift to a cooperative phase from what has been a unilateral phase of military action. The cooperative approach is championed by Rice, Gates, and people like Adm. Fallon. Many neo-conservatives, which unfortunately includes a bunch of big blue Navy folks I won't name specifically, form up the unilateral military action side.

Money quote from the piece:

Admiral William Fallon shakes his head slowly, and his eyes say, These guys [Iran] have no idea how much worse it could get for them. I am the reasonable one.

Building a Case for War in Iran - Part 2

News continues to roll in that the United States may be nearing a decision to strike Iran. In my previous installment, I discussed the storm of tough talk currently unleashed from Washington. In this installment I’ll lay out some of the other events in the region in recent weeks.

First, an intriguing report was published alleging that Washington authorized the execution and funding of a covert offensive against Iran in recent weeks.

Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, “unprecedented in its scope.”

Key graph:

All this costs money, which in turn must be authorized by Congress, or at least a by few witting members of the intelligence committees. That has not proved a problem. An initial outlay of $300 million to finance implementation of the finding has been swiftly approved with bipartisan support, apparently regardless of the unpopularity of the current war and the perilous condition of the U.S. economy.

Lee Smith at Michael Totten's writes: Hezbollah's Endgame? Pt. 2

David Wurmser, formerly Vice President Cheney's Middle East adviser, writes in to comment on Iran's role in the Beirut crisis.

“Iran has suffered some pretty serious defeats in Iraq, foremost is that the Shiites there kind of turned on Iran. May they not need to pull back and focus on their role as the champion of the Shiites right now, even at the cost of compromising their efforts to jump the Sunni-Shiite divide? They may actually be in no better a shape among Lebanon's Shiites as they are among Iraq's. Second, there were these really odd nasty exchanges between Zawahiri and Iran, which may have been born of Iran's desire right now to solidify its own role as Shiite champion."

Omar Fadhil of Iraq the Model comments at Pajamas Media. Iranian-Made Rocket Discovered Near Basra Alarms Iraqis

The Iraqi minister of defense pushed the debate with the Iranians over their provision of weapons to Shia militias one more step on Monday. Minister Abdul Qadir Obeidi indirectly confronted the Iranians, without naming them, with new findings that prove their involvement in the arming of Shia militias.

On Monday, state-owned al-Sabah published a statement by the minister in which he spoke of the capture of a certain type of rocket that was never found in militia-held caches until now:

Defense minister Abdul Qadir Mohammed Obeidi revealed that army troops found a 200-mm ground-to-ground rocket manufactured in 2007 during a search operation by the troops north of Basra. Obeidi told al-Sabah in an exclusive interview that, under international laws and norms, this kind of rocket can be traded only with the approval of parliaments and is used only at times of extreme necessity during wars … and wondered how this rocket entered the country. Obeidi added that this rocket can be launched only from a special platform and by specialized crews.

From what I read in Iraq’s two biggest newspapers, it seems that the government is trying to step up the rhetoric against Iranian interference in Iraq and to induce uproar among the Iraqi public.

Noah Pollak.

Hezbollah’s thug-in-chief, Hassan Nasrallah, addressed Lebanon today. What he said is not promising. You can read the entire transcript here, but it’s not necessary. The following snippet tells you everything you need to know:

I said . . . that any hand that reaches for the resistance [i.e., Hezbollah] and its arms will be cut off. Israel tried that in the July War, and we cut its hand off. We do not advise you to try us. Whoever is going to target us will be targeted by us. Whoever is going to shoot at us will be shot by us.

Captain Ed.

Iraqi soldiers have begun evacuating families from portions of Sadr City, a sign that a large offensive will start shortly against the Mahdi Army militia that have long controlled the sector of Baghdad. Two stadiums have been secured for sheltering the evacuees as the government of Nouri al-Maliki attempts to break Moqtada al-Sadr’s last stronghold and end mortar attacks on the Green Zone. Maliki also wants to end Iran’s influence in Iraq, which caused Iran to cut off security talks with Maliki and the US:

Gateway Pundit has: A Gift From Tehran-- ARMED HEZBOLLAH THUGS Roam Beirut ...Update: 1 Dead- Saudis Warn Hezbollah

Beirut Spring posted this photo of a bridge banner in Beirut that reads: "A gift from the municipality of Tehran to the righteous, resisting Lebanese people."
Yup. That sums it up.

All in all I'd say something was up. Namely a show down with Iran. I'd take the movement of the fleet as a sign of readiness for contingencies as opposed to the US initiating an attack. The question is: what will the Iranian response be to the dismantling of their proxies?

Update 09 May 008 1217z

Hezbollah's Subtle Takeover

Hezbollah has taken control of the media in Lebanon, and their propaganda campaign has already begun. They are currently presenting themselves as liberators of Lebanon, and allies of the Lebanese Army against a corrupt government supported by pro-government snipers and brigrands.

Hezbollah's militant takeover of Beirut and its systematic destruction of the authority of the state and freedom of the press suggests a sophisticated and planned campaign to take power. There is no hiding the violence Hezbollah used to seize Beirut and cut it off from the rest of the country. But as their media campaign is already showing, Hezbollah is employing subtle and sophisticated mechanisms to take over the rest of Lebanon. All news which could be construed as negative behaviors, such as the blatant destruction and corruption of Lebanese institutions, is hidden beneath a Hezbollah-dominated media blackout.

No one knows if Hezbollah is currently occupying government building, re-routing the telecommunications networks, placing weapons in areas they could not gain access to before, and more. If Hezbollah wins this battle, this information will never be made public.

Instapundit says:

I GET AN EMAIL NEWSLETTER from an oil trader and today it includes this tidbit: "In an interesting twist of OPEC news – in the folder titled 'Adequate Supply' – Iran has chartered an armada of supertankers to act as floating storage for as many as 28 million barrels of crude oil that is backing up on them. Analysts are blaming worldwide refineries yet to recover from maintenance programs. It’s not the first time that Iran has had trouble finding buyers; they temporarily floated 20 million barrels in 2006. No, I can’t explain this in light of record oil prices and continual cries for more release of OPEC crude oil. "

U.S. crude stocks are up, too. This is unlikely to be the case, but here's a thought: If I were, say, the United States government, and I anticipated military action in the mideast that might interrupt oil supplies, I wouldn't want to stockpile directly because that would be a tipoff. But if I manipulated markets into running up stocks, I wouldn't have to. . . . Nah. They're not that smart.

Note that 28 million barrels of oil is $3 bn dollars worth at current prices give or take. I wonder if Iran is expecting a strike on their refineries or oil fields?

Many links from Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Maliki Doesn't Give A Damn

I just got turned on to a blog that seems to have some very in depth knowledge of what is going on in Iraq. Talisman Gate. There is an entry up about the recent fighting in Iraq. Panic in the Green Zone. Let me quote a bit:

Those counseling caution and delay stressed that smashing Sadrist-related criminal cartels would spark a large-scale Sadrist reaction across Iraq at a time when the Bush administration wants to keep Iraq quiet especially with the '4000' milestone that was being approached and got passed a couple of days ago. Another argument against action counseled that the Iranians are angling for a fire-fight to sully any talk of progress that Gen. Petraeus may give in a couple of weeks when he appears before Congress, and that the Democrats and their allies in the US media would take these images out of Basra and elsewhere and package the news as a "security meltdown"...

...Maliki decided that he doesn't give a damn about US presidential elections and that the only timeline that concern him are Iraq's own upcoming elections...

That doesn't sound like a weak leader at all. That sounds like a "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead kind of guy.

It seems that much of the logistics for Operation Cavalry Charge were delivered through an airlift by the Iraqi Air Force because the military planners assumed that the outlaws would mine transportation routes in and out of Basra with IEDs. According to one source briefed on the campaign's logistics, the Iraqi Army in Basra (...I think we're talking about 3 Divisions that are in this fight) is amply supplied and overstocked with food, ammunition and spare parts, indicating that the planners are foreseeing a long campaign.

So the Iraqis were handling their own logistics. Impressive.

Operation Cavalry Charge is still in full effect and Maliki is brazenly saying that he hasn't signed a ceasefire with anyone. He's still out to arrest the criminals on his Most Wanted list, according to the press conference he held today in which he suggested that Sadr City too needed a clean-up.

The Sadrists have called for a 'March of Millions' next Wednesday to protest America's presence in Iraq. Government spokesmen have already said that a peaceful protest is perfectly fine with them but that any violence will be met with overpowering violence.

Stay tuned for grossly exaggerated estimates by western reporters of the numbers attending these rallies where these same western reporters will likely be the most animated of activists.

Let me quote the author's profile so you can get some idea who he is:

Nibras Kazimi

Visiting Scholar at the Hudson Institute in Washington DC. I also write a weekly column on the Middle East for the New York Sun, and a monthly column for the Prospect Magazine (UK).

Welcome to my blog. This is the place where I explore issues like whether Nostradamus had predicted the whole Zarqawi phenomena, and is Walid Junbulatt the real Hariri killer? In other words, this space is devoted to all the stuff that would peg me a crank should I try to put it out in print. But what the hell, journalistic credibility is way too over-regarded. Plus, blogging is an exercise in vanity; it is the joy-ride of ego-trips. So, excuse my pompous self-righteousness, and try to enjoy your stay.

I like that attitude.

Now about those pregnant men.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Al Sadr Wins

At least that is how James Joyner is spinning it. Let me excerpt from a comment there (with typo fixed):

Sadr could have made this much messier than it was if he wanted to

So true. He could have had 5,000 dead to clean up instead of only 500. You have to give him credit for not wanting a bigger mess.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

What The Heck Is Going On In Iraq?

I believe we must turn to a source we can trust. Al Jazeera. The headline is: Sadr orders his fighters to stand down.

What are the terms?

UPDATED ON: SUNDAY, MARCH 30, 2008 19:27 MECCA TIME, 16:27 GMT - [it is currently 1805z]

Al-Sadr's nine-point plan, agreed with the Iraqi government, was issued by his headquarters in the city of Najaf and broadcast through loudspeakers on Shia mosques.

James Bays, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Baghdad, said: "The main elements are that Muqtada al-Sadr's fighters should leave the streets ... in return, apparently, they will not be pursued, the Iraqi government will not arrest any of them unless they have arrest warrants for them.

"The big question now is whether the Mahdi army fighters will obey this command because there are all sorts of factions and splinter groups in existence."

Basra operation

Despite the order Iraqi troops will continue military operations against "criminals" in Basra, al-Dabbagh later told the Reuters news agency.

"The operation in Basra will continue and will not stop until it achieves its goals. It is not targeting the Sadrists but criminals," he said.

It is not targeting the Sadrists but criminals

How can you tell the difference? I suppose the criminals are the guys with weapons.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Victory Claims Another Victim

Future Majority notes:

So here's something I just noticed. Senators Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel are proposing legislation for a new "GI Bill" to help veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars go on to college after their service.

As I recall Hegel and Webb have not been exaclty staunch in their support for our efforts in Iraq. As I noted in I Can See It Coming the stabilization in Iraq is making believers out of antagonists. They are going to have to paper over their lack of support with something. Supporting the Troops it is then.

Then the blogger asks, where have the "progressives" been. On the other side 'til now, I'd say.

So here's the thing - why are no progressive youth organizations partnering with IAVA or organizing their own campaigns? Young Democrats, USSA, Student PIRGs, Campus Progress . . . all of these organizations organized around the passage of the Cost of College Reduction Act, so why aren't they supporting legislation that would grant similar reprieve to their peers who have served our country?

And now the kicker. The sad shape our returning troops are in re: opportunities, education, medical benefits, etc. is all the fault of the Republicans.

On a moral level, it's atrocious that so many veterans are now unemployed, unable to pay for school, and even homeless. We should do everything in our power to alleviate that situation. On a political level, this is a fantastic issue to make inroads with young people in the military who may now be disillusioned with the Republican Party.

Welcome to the Victory Party. I appreciate your sincerity. It is not about serving the warriors. It is converting Republicans to "progressives" (translation - soft communists - for now).

British Defeated - Sue For Peace

Pajamas Media's Wretchard has a very interesting bit on how the British were defeated in Iraq. You know, the very same British who had over 300 years of experience with colonialism and whose wisdom on the matter was obviously absolute.

Although considerable coverage has been given to the possible failure of the British strategy in southern Iraq, relatively little has been written about its possible underlying causes. On Oct 29, the Daily Telegraph ran a sensational article which suggested the British Army’s position had declined to the point where it is pinned down in its bases and can no longer persuade interpreters to accompany troops on patrol.

Rather than fight on, they have struck a deal – or accommodation, as they describe it – with the Shia militias that dominate the city, promising to stay out in return for assurances that they will not be attacked. Since withdrawing, the British have not set foot in the city and even have to ask for permission if they want to skirt the edges to get to the Iranian border on the other side. … "We don’t speak Arabic to explain and our translators were too scared to work for us any more. What benefit were we bringing to these people?"

It was a sad ending to a campaign which had been held up as a shining contrast to the U.S. campaign in Iraq. In August of 2007 the Washington Post described the shrunken state of the British influence in Iraq’s oil port.

"The British have basically been defeated in the south," a senior U.S. intelligence official said recently in Baghdad. They are abandoning their former headquarters at Basra Palace, where a recent official visitor from London described them as "surrounded like cowboys and Indians" by militia fighters. An airport base outside the city, where a regional U.S. Embassy office and Britain’s remaining 5,500 troops are barricaded behind building-high sandbags, has been attacked with mortars or rockets nearly 600 times over the past four months.

So where has the success in Iraq come from? The US Marines Small Wars Manual. Semper Fi. I think this goes to the core of the American character and something the British were known for. Muddling through. Or as Churchill put it, "Americans always do the right thing after they have tried everything else". Evidently that is no longer true of the British. Sad.

Which brings us the question of what is the next step? I look at that in Progress Is Our Most Important Product. Let us see what the Pajama's Guy, Wretchard aka Richard Fernandez, has to say on that subject.

The US threatened to reinforce Basra, an act which would have humiliated Gordon Brown.

The US warned that a brigade of troops would be sent from Baghdad to take "appropriate action" to maintain security. … Downing Street deemed it to be politically unacceptable for the Americans to replace British troops in Basra, as it would glaringly expose the growing differences between the two countries over Iraq.

Those highlights between those differences have become more invidious with the comparative success the surge is having even in Shi’ite areas. Recently US Army Colonel Michael Garrett described a process the reverse of Basra in the area south of Baghdad where civilian reconstruction teams were being deployed — not withdrawn — into the provinces with increasing success. Garrett, the commander of the 4th Brigade Combat team of the 25th Division contrasted his previous deployment, when "violence was at it’s highest point" to the current situation where "we really have gained the initiative … attacking al Qaeda and Shi’a extremist militias with much vigor … the attack levels are at the lowest today that they’ve been in our 13-plus months here on the ground". Most importantly, successes were being scored not only against al-Qaeda, but against Shi’ite militias. Garrett pointed out that the Shi’ites were starting to provide crucial intelligence which enabled them to neutralize high-value targets.

So there you have it. Help deliver a better life to the people and they respond by helping to defend not only the improved conditions, but also the suppliers of the improvements. No doubt it will ultimately descend into "what have you done for me lately", but by that time the Iraqi government should be running the show and then Iraqis will only have Iraqis to blame.

H/T Instapundit

Progress Is Our Most Important Product

A while back I did a post called Electricity where I discussed a number of things that would need to be done to stabilize Iraq and advance the welfare of its people.

I pointed out that security was the first order of business. That seems to be coming along nicely.

What is not coming along so well is improvements in basic modern services. Electricity, sanitation (clean water supplies, water borne and solid waste), natural gas heating and cooking.

A government that can't improve the lot of its citizens (at least bringing a country up to second world standards) is not going to last. With the high price of oil to finance such improvements, rolling out such efforts in an improved security situation should get priority.

That Was Bad

About Iraq:

Our generals up 'til now didn't win. That was bad. Our generals up 'til now didn't lose. That was good.

In addition too little force allowed the insurgents free play. That was bad. Too little force allowed the Iraqis to get to know the insurgents on an intimate basis. That was good.

Out of bad strategy and bad tactics victory may yet come.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Children As Decoys

Using children as decoys is not the worst part.

They killed the kids.

Canada's National Post reports Children used as decoy in Iraq bombing

WASHINGTON — A U.S. general Tuesday said Iraqi insurgents used children in a suicide attack this weekend, raising worries that the insurgency has adopted a new tactic to get through security checkpoints with bombs.

Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy director for regional operations in the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, said adults in a vehicle with two children in the backseat were allowed through a Baghdad checkpoint Sunday.

The adults then parked next to a market in the Adamiya area of Baghdad, abandoned the vehicle and detonated it with the children still inside, according to the general and another defense official.

And yet our lefty friends tell us this is another reason to leave Iraq to the tender mercies of this scum. Such humanitarianism.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

A Stand Up Fight

I seem to be obsessed with war news these days. Kind of a morbid fascination. In any case, US forces in Iraq have some how managed to get a group of insurgents to stand up and fight. As usual under such circumstances the insurgents are taking a beating.

NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. and Iraqi forces killed some 250 gunmen from an apocalyptic Muslim cult on Sunday in a battle involving U.S. tanks and aircraft near the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf, Iraqi police, army and political sources said.

Two Americans were killed, the U.S. military said, when an attack helicopter went down during the day-long battle in what was one of the strangest incidents of the four-year conflict. Iraqi officials said the helicopter seemed to be shot down.

According to one Iraqi political source, hundreds of fighters drawn from both Sunni and Shi'ite communities were still fighting. A Reuters reporter at the scene, 160 km (100 miles) south of Baghdad, saw U.S. tanks and heard blasts after dark and an Iraqi officer said F-16 jets were bombing the area.

Details of the day's fighting were sketchy and the origins of the fighters unclear. An Iraqi army source said some of the dead wore headbands declaring themselves a "Soldier of Heaven."

The governor of Najaf province said the group had gathered in orchards near the city and had been planning to attack the main Shi'ite clerical leadership on Monday. It is the climax of the annual Shi'ite rite of Ashura, marking a 7th century battle which entrenched the schism between Shi'ite and Sunni Islam.

Given that the usual battles against insurgents only kill a few at a time, the death of 250 or more has to mark a turning point.

Normally guerillas do not stand and fight. As this fight shows it is not to their advantage. Worse, is to fight in the open. They must have been in a very bad position to get into a situation where all they could do is go down fighting.

It is possible that the troop surge is having an effect. Not necessisarily beneficial to the anti-government forces.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

War Talk

Bush is starting to make his case for a strike on Iran.

Fri Jan 26, 12:46 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian agents active inside Iraq, The Washington Post reported on Friday, citing government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the plan.

The move, approved last fall, is aimed at weakening Iran's influence in the region and forcing Tehran to abandon its nuclear program that the West believes is for nuclear weapons and not energy, the newspaper said, citing the unidentified officials.

For more than a year, U.S. forces have held dozens of Iranians for a few days, taking DNA samples from some as well as photographs and fingerprints from all those captured, the report said.

Several Iranian officials have been detained in three U.S. raids over the last month. Outgoing U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters on Wednesday that details of accusations against them would be made public in the coming days.

He said they were "going after networks" of security agents, which he said were a mainstay of Iran's involvement in Iraq. The United States has accused Iran of helping arm, train and fund Iraqi militants, notably fellow Shi'ite Muslims.

I discussed in An Act Of War how the USA was starting to provoke Iran. Little insults like the taking of an Iranian Embassy in Iraq and six people from that embassy. Cutting off bank transfers with Iran. That one really hurts. I think they are going to be poked until they do something rash or lose face. Of course Iran is using Hizballah in Lebanon to show they can make trouble too.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Betraying Our Allies

Captain's Quarters is discussing the Vanity Fair hit job on a group of neo-cons whose views on the war were completely misrepresented.

Michael Rubin's views are particularly apt.

Washington’s word must mean something. Leadership is about responsibility, not just politics. We cannot go around the world betraying our allies — in this case Iraqis who believed in us or allied with us — just because of short-term political expediency.

After we left Viet Nam with our tail between our legs a lot of smaller countries felt that America was not a good ally if it was not a vital American interest.

In this case a viable independent Iraqi representative government is in America's vital interest. Most of the country is relatively secure.

This insurgency is handicapped by having to move in the cities prematurely. i.e. from the start. Insurgencies in cities are difficult because operational security is always threatened. Eyes are everywhere and there is money for secrets. Operational security can be preserved better in the mountains. Lines of approach are limited. The reason for the premature move to the cities is that the Kurds control the mountains. They have been an American proctectrate for the last 12 years and have developed a thriving democratic civil society. Should we abandon success?

Or how about the reflooding of the Iraqi marshes which Saddam dried out in revenge for the Marsh Arab Revolt revolt, which was encouraged and then not supported by Bush I?

We have the biggest problem squeezed to the Baghdad area. We can get the upper hand in the intel battle over time. Sources take time to develop. They also represent an operational security probem for our side since they are a point of contact between both sides. So trust must be developed.

Eventually, as the Israelis have found out, enough networks can be developed to provide a fair to good early warning system. With that you start going after central figures. Engineers (for bombings), planners, squad leaders. Keep killing or capturing brains and experience.

All this could take as much as five years. It might take as much as two years to start seeing results. I think some more patience is in order.

Update: 07 Nov '06 2048z

Winds of Change gives this topic good coverage.

Winds of Change in their coverage posted this link to what the troops think

The Letterman Question

Bill O'Reilly asked David Letterman a question.

O'Reilly: Let me ask you something. And this is a serious question. Do you want the United States to win in Iraq?

Which seems like a very good question to me.

If you get a yes than the next question is "How?"

I have some ideas. No doubt others have more and better answers. Without a "yes" the rest is irrelevant.

The Iraqi President says what they need is two to three more years of American help.

PARIS (Reuters) -- Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said on Thursday U.S. troops should remain in Iraq for up to three more years to help bring peace to the country, envisaging a slower withdrawal programme than that suggested by Washington.

At the start of a week-long visit to France, Talabani rejected suggestions Iraq had descended into civil war and accused the media of focusing exclusively on negative stories.

However, he said "international terrorists" were still concentrating all their efforts in Iraq which meant the country needed outside help to defeat them.

"We need time. Not 20 years, but time. I personally can say that two to three years will be enough to build up our forces and say to our American friends 'Bye bye with thanks'," Talabani told a conference organised by the IFRI think-tank.

Winning will probably take longer, but stabilization (where the Iraqis handle the fighting with little American help) is possible in the not too distant future. American Generals think a year to a year and a half. The Iraqi President thinks twice that long. It is doable if the American peopole stick with the project.

Unified Action

Reader Carol Herman alerted me to this excellent Austin Bay "Strategy Page" discussion of an interview with Donald Rumsfield.

Saddam Hussein's economic and political policies damaged agriculture in the land that eight millennia ago spawned the Agricultural Revolution. (Heck of an achievement, huh?) Agriculture, Commerce and several NGOs have expertise and programs that are helping revive Iraqi farms. Still, problems occur when trying to tailor programs to meet specific local needs -- like, who pays for the program and who is ultimately in charge of oversight and coordination.

This kind of effort is called "Unified Action". Here is how we used to direct those efforts.

Our system for "Unified Action" is still largely a Cold War, 20th century relic designed to prop up governments (so often corrupt and ill-led), instead of helping individuals and neighborhoods become economically self-sustaining and self-securing. Winning war in the Age of the Internet means improving neighborhoods and individual lives. The 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner and micro-finance whiz Muhammad Yunus understands this.

Austin Bay points out something he saw in Iraq.

While serving in Iraq in 2004, I met a young U.S. Army captain who was running a successful small-scale date palm restoration project. What we really need are joint development and security teams, where agricultural and economic specialists work with that captain "in the field" on a sustained, day-to-day basis. We need to decide who is in charge of that team (the captain or the arborist?) and how we fund it.

Here is the hot question Austin asked Secratary Rumsfeld.

"Mr. Secretary, based on our experience in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the limited interagency and non-governmental organization (NGO) participation in that operation, how do you see 'Unified Action' evolving for future conflicts?"

This really is key for speeding improvement in Iraq. Get every one on the same page. This is particularly true of those elemetnts which Secratary Rumsfeld has some fairly direct influence.

The politically deft SecDef finessed the question -- and it was finesse, not dodge. The military jargon masked a heavy political hand grenade I was rolling toward the Beltway. You think Harry Reid's land deal or Mark Foley's messages are big stories? How about a stinging pre-election turf battle between Defense and the departments of State, Treasury, Justice, Commerce and Agriculture, complete with zinger accusations of who is or isn't contributing to the war effort?

I know, that's quite a claim, which is why I need to translate the mil-speak: Unified Action means coordinating and synchronizing every "tool of power" America possesses to achieve a political end -- like winning a global war for national survival against terrorists who hijack economically and politically fragile nations and provinces.

People understand the role of soldiers and cops in a war, but in 21st century wars where economic and political development are determinative, an arborist at the Department of Agriculture and a Commerce Department trade consultant can be powerful contributors to "Unified Action."

I'd like to see people and organizations competing to improve the lives of the Iraqi people.

Do you think the Democrats would be interested?

The BLUF

Here is an interesting report from Iraq from a Marine Corps Mother:

Let me give you the bottom-line up front (BLUF), and then catch you up on things. Feel free to forward this to whomever, since we still can't seem to get the press to tell folks what is going on. This is how the fight is going from my foxhole, and it is much more than the bombings, US casualties, and rumors of civil war the press seems to be focused on.

BLUF: We are not, and have not been, on the verge of civil war. We have had an increase in killings by militia groups in the past five weeks, and that is not helping get the new government seated, but we (the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and Coalition Forces) are far from losing control.

Kind of a different picture from what you read in the papers. Well you know. Read the whole thing.

Iraq Civil War, ISF, War Reporting, Iraqi Militia, Iraq War, Marine Corps, Iraq War Truth

How we botched the Iraq operation

Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe explains just how badly the Iraq operation was botched through the eye's of history:

Yes, it is. But liberations are often dangerous and turbulent, less clear-cut while they are happening than they later become in retrospect. There was chaos during the US occupation of Germany after World War II, and journalists were certain then too that military victory was being squandered through postwar blunders. In 1946, leading publications concentrated bad news in articles with headlines like "How We Botched the German Occupation" (Saturday Evening Post), "US seen 'fumbling' its job in Germany" (New York Times), and "Americans Are Losing the Victory in Europe" (Life).

Jeff then goes on to describe the situation in Iraq from the Iraqi point of view. This was done by handing out hundreds of video cameras and then editing the tape into a movie:

"Voices of Iraq" is by turns heartbreaking, exhilarating, and inspiring. The war and its destruction is never far from the surface. One of the opening scenes is of a car bombing in Sadr City, and when a little girl is asked by her off-camera interviewer, "What do you want to tell the world about Iraq?" she answers poignantly: "These explosions are hurting everyone." A mother weeps for her son, killed in the crossfire during a fight between US soldiers and looters. There is even footage -- supplied, Drury told NPR, by a sheik from Fallujah -- of insurgents preparing a bomb.

But bad as the war is, the horror it ended -- Saddam Hussein's 24-year reign -- was worse.

In the film, a young Kurdish mother tells her daughter, who is wielding the camcorder, how she would burn herself with cigarettes to prepare for the torture she knew was coming. A policeman recalls what it was like to arrest a member of the Ba'ath Party. "You'd be scared," he says. "You'd shake with fear." One man explains that Saddam's son Uday "used to come often to Ravad Street -- every Thursday for the market -- to choose a girl to rape." A few brief clips are shown from a captured Fedayeen Saddam videotape: A blindfolded man thrown to his death from a rooftop, a man's hand getting severed, someone's tongue being cut out.

Jeff then ends on a more hopeful note:

Iraqis haven't had much experience with democracy, but we see the delight they take in the new opportunities Saddam's defeat is making possible. Two women celebrate the freedom to get a passport. An artist talks proudly about work for which he went to prison. A young woman says her dream is to be a lawyer. And one rough-looking fellow says simply, "I wish for a government elected by the Iraqi people."

Yes, it's a liberation. And the men and women we liberated, it turns out, are people just like us. The headlines dwell on the bad news, and the bad news is certainly real. But things are looking up in Iraq, as the Iraqis themselves will be happy to tell you. All someone had to do was ask.

So it may be that Iraq is not irredeemably botched after all.

Hat tip LGF.