The Latest Surge News

For those who have been captivated by the Hillary, Obama, and Reverend Wright debacle unfolding before our very eyes you may have missed the latest surge news. It appears that the ill-advised strategy of Prime Minister al Maliki to disarm the militias in Southern Iraq is having unintended consequences in Baghdad. What many considered a heavy handed attempt by the Iraqi Prime Minister to weaken his political opponents has awakened the sleeping dogs of Sadr City where al-Sadr’s militia has held sway. What the offensive has demonstrated is how fragile any gains from the surge have been and how at any moment they can be reversed, it has also demonstrated how unprepared the Iraqi army and security forces are at being able to secure their nation.

BAGHDAD, April 29 -- A four-hour battle Tuesday between U.S. soldiers and Shiite militiamen left at least 28 Iraqis dead in the capital's Sadr City neighborhood, making it one of the bloodiest days in a month of sustained street fighting.

The clashes underscored how deeply U.S. forces have been drawn into heavy combat in the huge Shiite district since Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki unexpectedly launched an offensive in southern Iraq last month against Shiite militias, primarily the Mahdi Army of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.[1]

April will now be the deadliest month for US casualties since September of 07 and is harbinger of many more deaths to come. The fighting in Sadr City has led to 50 US deaths for the month of April, as the US has been drawn into a larger role in taking on the militias. The US military has become the big brother who has been drawn into a fight by a younger sibling (al-Maliki) knowing that his actions will be defended no matter how foolish. The original strategy was for the offensive to highlight the improvement of the Iraqi military and its ability to fight independently of US forces, needless to say that has not been the case. Once again the Iraqi forces are on the outside as the American forces carry the fight to the militias.

As we here in America revisit the infamous “Mission Accomplished” moment of George Bush aboard the aircraft carrier the USS Abraham Lincoln, the current increase in violence has underscored how foolish that declaration was then and how foolish any “surge is working” declaration is today. While much has changed since that “Top-Gun” incident, much has stayed the same. What has changed? There have been more deaths of innocent Iraqis and US service personnel, there have been more people injured, and there have been worsening economic consequences for America. What has stayed the same? We are no closer to liberating Iraq than we were then, the Iraqis are no closer to taking responsibility for their nation, and of course we are no closer to defeating the so-called reason for the war al-Qaeda.

I find it very interesting that as the level of violence increases and the US forces are poised to begin house to house missions in Sadr City that the military leaders who were suppose to bring victory are being promoted even though we are no closer to victory. I find it hard to believe that now is the time to make a change in military leadership in Iraq when there have been no concrete gains and the level of violence is increasing. I wonder what General Petraeus has done worthy of a promotion on the ground? Maybe it isn’t what he has done on the ground in Iraq, but on the ground in Washington. Since May 1^st 2003, the Iraqi War has changed from a fighting war to a political war. The war is driven not so much by the results in Iraq, but how they play in the US. The thing about a fight against an insurgency or an occupation is that the enemy does not have to score a convincing military victory, all they have to do is give the impression that they are invincible to the folks at home.

If the offensive against the militias, especially the ones in Sadr City continues to be pushed by US forces the number of casualties will continue to increase. What is taking place in Baghdad today is precisely what the independent military leaders have feared; urban warfare against an entrenched enemy that enjoys popular support. Even if we are able to dislodge the militias, the cost could be the loss of the populace from heavy casualties or heavy-handed tactics. The other problem that the US troops will face is that the militias had been filling in for the government by providing badly needed services and if they are removed and there is no replacement of services by the Iraqi government then we will have to worry about more than the militias.

---

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/29/AR2008042900560.html?hpid=sec-world

Read more!

Blackwater Highlights Bigger Issue In Iraq

The incident with the Blackwater Security Corporation in Iraq has been well documented. I certainly would not want to retrace the many stories detailing the charges and counter-charges. The Iraqis have completed their investigation and have concluded the attack against the civilians was unprovoked. The government of Iraq has asked the State Department to remove Blackwater from Iraq. It seems that the government of Iraq is tired of having its citizens being used for target practice for trigger happy mercs. This case and the findings of the Iraqi investigation brings up what I believe is the crux of the problem in Iraq. I think it is why the Iraqis have not worked harder at resolving their differences and trying to meet the benchmarks set up by the US.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Iraqi investigation into last month's Blackwater USA shooting is complete, and it proves that the private contractors committed unprovoked and random killings in the incident, an adviser to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said Tuesday.

Adviser Sami al-Askari told CNN al-Maliki has asked the U.S. State Department to "pull Blackwater out of Iraq."

Al-Askari said the United States is still waiting for the findings of the American investigation, but the Iraqi leader and most Iraqi officials are "completely satisfied" with the findings of their probe and are "insisting" that Blackwater leave the country.[1]

The fly in the ointment is sovereignty. The Bush Administration is big on talking about Iraqi sovereignty, but the truth of the matter is they don’t have any. This administration talks about how they are the guest of the Iraqi government and that government can request the US to leave at anytime, but this is false. Here is a government under occupation; they can’t even prosecute the random murders of 17 of their citizens. The government can’t kick the perpetrators out of the country and so they appear impotent and unable to protect their citizenry.

The government on the other hand refuses to honor any timetable placed upon them by the US. Their only form of protest is to delay reconciliation and prolong the conflict. So you have the government we put in place fighting against the aims of our government. What is rarely reported on by the US media is the pride of the Iraqi people, that pride has been repeatedly ravaged by our insensitivity to their culture, their women, and their religion.

The government of Prime Minister al-Maliki is caught between a rock and a hard place, on the one hand they have the Americans dictating that they must meet this goal or that and then they have their people who want and expect them to show independence from the occupiers. The next election, if we get that far will be a real eye opener for Washington whoever is President. I have a feeling the Iraqi people are going to send a clear message to Washington by electing a nationalistic candidate, a candidate who will distance himself from the US and demand the removal of US troops. By our refusal to allow the al-Maliki government the semblance of sovereignty we are setting the stage for the next radical leader to ascend to the throne. You cannot continue to stick your thumb into the eye of your host and not expect there to be a backlash.

The blowback of the Iraqi people will take the form of a conservative Islamic militant leader, who will play to the Iraqis desire to remove the US occupying army. The one thing most Iraqis agree upon, whether they are Sunnis or Shia is the desire to have the US troops gone. The next leader will campaign on the weakness of this government and its inability to rein in not only US troops, but US civilians as well. The rage of the Iraqi people is seething just below the surface and is never reported by the US press, so to most Americans the results will come as a surprise and they will view the Iraqis as ungrateful and uncivilized. Because of the lack of security the US press doesn’t have a real sense of the mood of the Iraqi people; it is pretty difficult to gauge the mood of the average Iraqi from behind the Green Zone barricades.

The problem with Iraq is even if we accomplish our goals, we still lose. Eventually the “warm welcome” we have received will turn sour and no matter how big or secure our embassy will be it won’t be able to withstand the will of the Iraqi people. Once again we will overplay our hand and overstay our welcome and the end will be worse than the beginning. Instead of having a secular government open to relations we will have a fanatical Islamist in power who will overturn all of our “progressive” agenda and return Iraq to another Middle Eastern theocracy. How’s that for a legacy Mr. Bush and your Neo-Con friends?

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.blackwater/index.html

Read more!