Advance word of a new National Intelligence Estimate casts doubt on the idea of "victory" in Iraq, creating problems for both John McCain and Barack Obama on the issue of withdrawal.
"A nearly completed high-level U.S. intelligence analysis warns that unresolved ethnic and sectarian tensions in Iraq could unleash a new wave of violence, potentially reversing the major security and political gains achieved over the last year," the McClatchy Newspapers report today.
Such a prediction undermines McCain's claims of "victory with honor" and complicates Obama's promises to begin immediate withdrawal if and when he takes office.
A consensus of all 16 US intelligence agencies, the new NIE cites as sources of continuing tension the struggle among Sunnis, Kurds and Turkmen for control of oil-rich Kirkuk and the Shiite-dominated central government's stalling over hiring former Sunni insurgents converted, for a price, into members of Awakening groups as well as fragility of the truce by Shiite militias led by Muqtada al Sadr.
Unlike McCain, Gen. David Petraeus is still refusing to proclaim victory, calling the situation "fragile" and "reversible," and the soon-to-be former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice this week publicly said that "nothing is certain in this life. And success in Iraq is not a sure thing."
Meanwhile, our troops continue to die there, albeit at a slower rate, and $10 billion from a strapped economy keeps being poured into the war that should never have started and shows no signs of ending.
Showing posts with label Muqtada al Sadr. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muqtada al Sadr. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Decoding Iraq
The Central Government's surprise offensive against Shiite militias in Basra in the past week was (a) a bold move by Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki to quell lawlessness, (b) a rash, impulsive action that had to be bailed out by the US or (c) both, with the underlying motive of politically weakening Muqtada al-Sadr before provincial elections later in the year.
The Bush administration, of course, has called the offensive a “defining moment” to show the Iraqi government's determination to take on renegade militias.
On the ground, it looked different. “He went in with a stick and he poked a hornet’s nest," said an anonymous US official, "and the resistance he got was a little bit more than he bargained for. They went in with 70 percent of a plan."
As al-Maliki got bogged down, it took US generals, admirals, ground troops and air strikes to rescue the operation and restore an uneasy peace.
But the prime minister, now feeling his oats, is beginning to sound like Eliot Ness.
"We cannot remain silent about our people and families in Sadr City, Shula and other areas ... while they are held hostage by gangs that control them," he told a news conference. "We must liberate these cities because we came
to serve them."
When they get here next week to explain it all to Congress, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will undoubtedly spin it as a sign of progress.
But yesterday in Baghdad, Crocker was urging less militant means on Maliki, to proceed with a plan to seek alliances with Shiite tribes.
“We strongly encouraged him to use his most substantial weapon, which is money, to announce major jobs programs, Basra cleanup, whatnot,” Crocker said. “And to do what he decided to do on his own: pay tribal figures to effectively finance an awakening for Basra.”
If you can't beat them, buy them.
The Bush administration, of course, has called the offensive a “defining moment” to show the Iraqi government's determination to take on renegade militias.
On the ground, it looked different. “He went in with a stick and he poked a hornet’s nest," said an anonymous US official, "and the resistance he got was a little bit more than he bargained for. They went in with 70 percent of a plan."
As al-Maliki got bogged down, it took US generals, admirals, ground troops and air strikes to rescue the operation and restore an uneasy peace.
But the prime minister, now feeling his oats, is beginning to sound like Eliot Ness.
"We cannot remain silent about our people and families in Sadr City, Shula and other areas ... while they are held hostage by gangs that control them," he told a news conference. "We must liberate these cities because we came
to serve them."
When they get here next week to explain it all to Congress, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will undoubtedly spin it as a sign of progress.
But yesterday in Baghdad, Crocker was urging less militant means on Maliki, to proceed with a plan to seek alliances with Shiite tribes.
“We strongly encouraged him to use his most substantial weapon, which is money, to announce major jobs programs, Basra cleanup, whatnot,” Crocker said. “And to do what he decided to do on his own: pay tribal figures to effectively finance an awakening for Basra.”
If you can't beat them, buy them.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Iraq's Cruelest Month Coming Up
Next week, against a backdrop of cherry blossoms on the Potomac, we will get the latest Petraeus-Crocker production of "Blood and Sand" for an audience of the hollow men and women in both houses of Congress.
When they get here, the General and the Ambassador will no doubt give us another suave performance to explain the latest twist in the Mideast theater of the absurd--how our Iraqi lawmakers have been in Iran appealing to the head of the Revolutionary Guard, branded a terrorist organization by Congress last August, to persuade Muqtada al Sadr to order his followers to stop killing people in Baghdad and Basra.
If all this feels like being trapped in an endless Pinter play, consider the recent monologues of Andrew Cordesman, one of our most knowledgeable observers. Last summer, describing Iraq as "three dimensional chess in the dark while someone is shooting at you," he made a cautious case for starting to withdraw troops early this year. A month ago, another trip to Iraq and Afghanistan persuaded him that "these are wars that can still be won" if we stay another decade or more.
Today Cordesman describes "worrisome possibilities" that could deny us "victory" in Iraq--the cooperating Sunni tribes and militias could turn against the central government, ethnic conflicts to control territory in the north could lead to fighting in Kirkuk, Mosul and other areas and the political struggle between the dominant Shiite parties could become an armed conflict. (Could? Check the headlines.)
In 2004, as a division commander, Gen.Petraeus was asking a question to which he clearly had no answer, “Tell me how this ends.” Last year, he was telling us that "we can't shoot our way out of Iraq." No matter what he has to say now, how do we persuade him and Congress to stop sleepwalking with Bush toward the edge of another precipice?
When they get here, the General and the Ambassador will no doubt give us another suave performance to explain the latest twist in the Mideast theater of the absurd--how our Iraqi lawmakers have been in Iran appealing to the head of the Revolutionary Guard, branded a terrorist organization by Congress last August, to persuade Muqtada al Sadr to order his followers to stop killing people in Baghdad and Basra.
If all this feels like being trapped in an endless Pinter play, consider the recent monologues of Andrew Cordesman, one of our most knowledgeable observers. Last summer, describing Iraq as "three dimensional chess in the dark while someone is shooting at you," he made a cautious case for starting to withdraw troops early this year. A month ago, another trip to Iraq and Afghanistan persuaded him that "these are wars that can still be won" if we stay another decade or more.
Today Cordesman describes "worrisome possibilities" that could deny us "victory" in Iraq--the cooperating Sunni tribes and militias could turn against the central government, ethnic conflicts to control territory in the north could lead to fighting in Kirkuk, Mosul and other areas and the political struggle between the dominant Shiite parties could become an armed conflict. (Could? Check the headlines.)
In 2004, as a division commander, Gen.Petraeus was asking a question to which he clearly had no answer, “Tell me how this ends.” Last year, he was telling us that "we can't shoot our way out of Iraq." No matter what he has to say now, how do we persuade him and Congress to stop sleepwalking with Bush toward the edge of another precipice?
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Trapped in Bush's Old Movie
Muqtada al Sadr is splintering the peace in Baghdad and Basra, militias are murdering and looting, but our toy soldier President is still out speechifying to captive stateside military audiences about how splendidly the war is going and belaboring Congressional Democrats for "hectoring" Iraqi leaders as they "try to work out their differences."
After five years, over 4000 American lives and half a trillion dollars, George W. Bush has no patience for critics whose "prescription is always the same: retreat." Today he ridicules anti-war Democrats: "They claim that our strategic interest is elsewhere and if we would just get out of Iraq, we could focus on the battles that really matter."
Then the President sets them straight: "If America's strategic interests are not in Iraq, the convergence point for the twin threats of al Qaeda and Iran, the nation Osama bin Laden's deputy has called the place for the greatest battle, the country at the heart of the most volatile region on earth, then where are they?"
The critics could furnish him with a list, starting with Afghanistan, Pakistan and homeland security, but that might intrude on George W. Bush's fantasy life.
With every passing day, he is looking more like the deluded character in "Arsenic and Old Lace" who thinks he's Teddy Roosevelt and keeps running up the stairs with a saber, yelling "Charge!" and the rest of us feel trapped in his bad movie praying for the lights to come back on.
After five years, over 4000 American lives and half a trillion dollars, George W. Bush has no patience for critics whose "prescription is always the same: retreat." Today he ridicules anti-war Democrats: "They claim that our strategic interest is elsewhere and if we would just get out of Iraq, we could focus on the battles that really matter."
Then the President sets them straight: "If America's strategic interests are not in Iraq, the convergence point for the twin threats of al Qaeda and Iran, the nation Osama bin Laden's deputy has called the place for the greatest battle, the country at the heart of the most volatile region on earth, then where are they?"
The critics could furnish him with a list, starting with Afghanistan, Pakistan and homeland security, but that might intrude on George W. Bush's fantasy life.
With every passing day, he is looking more like the deluded character in "Arsenic and Old Lace" who thinks he's Teddy Roosevelt and keeps running up the stairs with a saber, yelling "Charge!" and the rest of us feel trapped in his bad movie praying for the lights to come back on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)