(Updated) New Baghdad Plan: A Recipe For Disaster?
In a move that took American commanders by surprise, the Iraqi government has ordered tens of thousands of Baghdad residents to leave homes and offices that they are occupying illegally because of the orgy of sectarian cleansing that has torn apart the capital city.
Lieutenant General Aboud Qanbar, who is leading the crackdown, also announced the closing of Iraq’s borders with Iran and Syria, an extension of the curfew in Baghdad by an hour, and the establishment of new checkpoints.
Qanbar said the government would break into homes and cars it deemed dangerous, open mail and eavesdrop on phone calls.
No mention was made of the role American forces would play in the crackdown, but it obviously was timed to coincide with President Bush’s “surge� strategy. Indeed, thousands of American troops in armored Stryker vehicles swarmed through three mostly Shiite neighborhoods of northeastern Baghdad later in the day.
The New York Times reported that:
The operation met with little resistance, but considerable skepticism from some Iraqis, who worried that the American presence would soon melt away again, leaving ruthless violence in its place.
American officers expressed surprise about the Iraqi crackdown, while Samantha Power, a public policy professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, described it as either a public relations ploy or a prelude to more sectarian cleansing and catastrophe.
Power, who has written widely on genocide, said that:
To do this in the middle of a war when tempers have been inflamed and militarization is ubiquitous seems to be putting the cart before the horse. You haven’t stopped the willingness to ethnically cleanse, but you’re imposing the moral hazard of ethnic cleansing on the cleansee? Unless you create security first, you are paving the way for a potential massacre of returnees.
More here.
VIDEO OF KIDNAPPED SOLDIER RELEASED
Meanwhile, it appears that kidnapped U.S. Army Sergeant Ahmed K. Altaie is being held by a previously unknown Shiite group.
The uncle of the Iraqi-American translator abducted last October in Baghdad identified his missing nephew today in a video posted on the Web site of the Ahel al-Beit Brigades.
More here.
Acting like they were the last to find out, the Pentagon has confirmed that a CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter that crashed last week near Baghdad was shot down. All seven crew members and passengers were killed.
TMV was well ahead of the story here, including a link to a video that clearly showed a shoot down and not mechanical failure as the Pentagon had insisted.
More on the story here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
36 Responses to “(Updated) New Baghdad Plan: A Recipe For Disaster?”
Business as usual in Baghdad. The ‘government’ starts another thinly veiled campaign targetting Sunnis who already were victims of ethnical cleansing, and the US simply trots along. How is the situation supposed to improve this way?
|-(
Yawn. Slow comments day. All Europeans still asleep?
:-/
Btw, another story ourced on unnamed ‘officials’ is making rounds right now:
Al Sadr Fled Iraq, Fearing U.S. Bombs
Well, it’s great that TMV doesn’t spread such propaganda that’s purely based on anonymously hearsay…
;D
Gray:
Al Sadr has family in Iran. He travels there frequently. I have yet to read anything definitive that states that this time he “fled” Iraq.
“Al Sadr has family in Iran. He travels there frequently. I have yet to read anything definitive that states that this time he “fledâ€? Iraq.”
Good point, Shaun. But nevertheless US officials seem to use this as a propaganda tool against al Sadr. This is all over the news now.
Well, at least the US propaganda is superior, even if its anti terror efforts so far aren’t. Just look at Al Quaeda No.2′s lousy attempt at influencing the world opinion:
Al-Qaida’s No. 2 calls Bush an alcoholic
D’oh. What else is news?
Don’t wanna spam this thread, but this just in:
Officials linked to al-Sadr deny he fled
Do you notice the difference in reporting? This AP correspondent gives reasons why officials insisted on staying anonymous, and even names one source:
“Lawmaker Nassar al-Rubaie, the head of Sadrist bloc in parliament, insisted al-Sadr had not left the country.”
Now, this is what real reporting ought to look like, not that ridiculous stuff we have seen recently, presented as ‘news’!
thanks for those links,
Gray, Gray, Gray and Gray.
Seriously though, thanks.
Welcome, Mike. I guess it’s inevitable that TMV does a story on this, since it’s in the news, but I hope you point out that most sources want to stay anonymous. This al Sadr story is far from an established fact…
This is a bizarre statement on the part of Power:
“To do this in the middle of a war when tempers have been inflamed and militarization is ubiquitous seems to be putting the cart before the horse. You haven’t stopped the willingness to ethnically cleanse, but you’re imposing the moral hazard of ethnic cleansing on the cleansee? Unless you create security first, you are paving the way for a potential massacre of returnees.”
You can’t achieve security in the face of an insurgency unless you lock down the population.
The two most successful counter-insurgencies of the past century – the British in Malaysia, and earlier in the South African Boer War – involved lock-downs of the population on a massive scale. The British developed this model in the Boer War, and escalated it in Malaysia where hundreds of thousands were relocated.
In Malaysia the resettlement proved popular as the Brits combined security with better services (health care etc.)
Of course, the argument can be made that this is a Shi’a tactic to kill Sunni.
But Power must know that security requires a near-absolute lockdown.
From the sounds of that quote, it is she is putting the cart before the horse.
I think because, in our human rights climate (Power’s academic focus is on human rights), a counter-insurgency is effectively impossible. If one locks down the population, it is tyranny. If one allows freedom of movement leading to car bombings etc., it is chaos and a botched occupation.
Human rights critics win both ways.
Marlowecan:
Good points all.
My own take is this move smacks of desperation and that bleeding hearts like Power are justifiably concerned because Al Maliki has thrown his lot in with his Shiite brethern, while most of the displaced people who are targets of the sweep are Sunnis.
If you were a Sunni you too would be freaked.
Also, at the risk of inflaming Gray — and who doesn’t like inflaming Gray
— I would add the Israeli Wall.
It has effectively sealed the Palestinean territories, and all but stopped the wave of suicide bombings that were at the core of the second intifada.
After all, the last suicide bomber had to go to Egypt and hitchhike across the Sinai to strike in Israel.
“Also, at the risk of inflaming Gray — and who doesn’t like inflaming Gray
— I would add the Israeli Wall.”
Hehehehe, indeedy!
However, I’m for the Israeli wall. Even though, as a german citizen, I don’t like walls very much in general, I think it would be an important improvement for the security situation. As long as it isn’t build on occupied territory, that is.
Shaun, I entirely agree.
“If you were a Sunni you too would be freaked.”
One point in your quote was very interesting…how the US commanders were caught off guard by this.
That is important, I think, as it suggests that the cooperation necessary to the so-called Surge may not truly be there.
Also, in the link, the comment of a taxi driver that all it took was a bribe and you could move all the explosives one wanted, was a bad sign.
The people have to believe in the security. They will not accept a trade-off without it.
Perhaps we are witnessing the beginnings of an ethnic cleansing? A lockdown was necessary. Will it be successful. Will the Shi’a slaughter of Sunnis begin? The next few days will tell…
“That is important, I think, as it suggests that the cooperation necessary to the so-called Surge may not truly be there.”
Right, Marlowe. But thinking about this, it makes me wonder: Do the surge plans actually include civilian cooperation? Of course, it would be quite difficult to improve security without the participation of the residents…
:-/
Gray said: “As long as it isn’t build on occupied territory, that is.”
Good point.
That is always the problem with security. The Israelis tried to use the wall/security to their own non-security interests (and were compelled by their Supreme Court to readjust it) on occupied land.
That is precisely the risk Shaun highlighted in his comment above. This operation makes sense in terms of security, but will it be used to other purposes by the mostly Shi’a security forces?
Marlowecan:
Noting that war is a messy thing and that Baghdad is a big and messy place, there has been and continues to be a disconnect between the Al Maliki government, the Iraqi military and the U.S. military.
If the lid is to be put on ethnic cleansing (which in my view has been going on for months now; it’s not something new), it will require an extraordinary amount of cooperation and coordination between all parties.
The omens for the success of Al Maliki’s surprise crackdown and President Bush’s “surge” strategy are very bad and, in the end, have squat to do with Iran, which in some respects seems like a welcome distraction for the power brokers.
Dammit…I arrive expecting a donnybrook, and suddenly there is all this agreement here.
Has the coffee started kicking in, and everyone is mellowing out?
What does one have to do? I know…
George W. Bush: BEST PRESIDENT EVER!!!
Hahahahahah…let’s see everyone try to agree about that one!
“This operation makes sense in terms of security, but will it be used to other purposes by the mostly Shi’a security forces?”
Well, judging from Shaun’s story, it sure looks as if the Shiite dominated Iraqi government uses this to their advantage, and US brass cluelessly falls into their trap…
Ok, imho violence between the groups is unavoidable, but US troops shouldn’t be involved in it. This will only further deteriorate the US reputation among the population. I really think the best strategy is to stay out of the civil war as much as possible, and concentrate on securing the borders.
Shaun said: “The omens for the success of Al Maliki’s surprise crackdown and President Bush’s “surgeâ€? strategy are very bad and, in the end, have squat to do with Iran, which in some respects seems like a welcome distraction for the power brokers.”
Alack and alas, at the risk of inflaming this tide of moderation on this thread, I must agree.
I hope the so-called “Surge” succeeds, but I doubt it will. Yes, Iran is a “welcome distraction” for the White House internationally and domestically. Doesn’t it make sense that insurgents could hunker down and wait it out (or repeat Fallujah, and clear out to another town before the city is sealed)?
“Dammit…I arrive expecting a donnybrook, and suddenly there is all this agreement here.”
Hehehe!
This is the hard bigotry of high expectations, Marlowe!
The question is where do the ‘squatters� go after eviction. If they moved in after the owners were forced out they might be able to go back to their old neighborhood. If they fled sectarian violence and moved, they have no place to go. As far as Sadr going to Iran, I would do the same thing. Stay in a secure place and let the political situation sort itself out before returning. There is a possibility the SCIRI and Maliki have cut a some political deal, better for Sadr to stay out of things for now.
I am able to spend a little more time inflaming passions today because there is a big ice storm where I live and I’ll be slogging into the university library a bit later than usual.
So here I am listening to my favorite jazz station webstream with a cup of hot joe worrying about whether the power will go out.
This prompts me to note how extraordinarily fortunate most of us are. People in Baghdad are happy to just have electricity for a few hours a day. Try as I might, I cannot put myself in their place and can only pray that this unrelenting nightmare — for which my country must share most of the blame — comes to an end.
Now, back to the fisticuffs . . .
I thought the same thing on first reading, but then had another thought: perhaps this is an example of the US and Iraq playing good cop, bad cop. Perhaps part of the strategy is for Iraq to take responsiblity for certain things that would be even more inflammatory if the US forces were involved, and vice versa? I find this consistent with something that happened right after Bush announced the surge plan: Maliki came out making statements that seemed to contradict his support for the increased US troops. He was saying that he told Bush that more US help wasn’t needed, that he was going to get Baghdad under control. A lot of this seems to be info tailored for domestic consumption among the Iraqis, and then our govt feeding us info that is more palatable to us (after all- would most in the US want to be associated with such a lock down, even if we know it’s probably necessary?)
If the mission is to try to win over the support of the bulk of the population, then there needs to be security, utilities and jobs. It seems logical that utilities and jobs would follow security.
The United States has a few major problems now:
1) We don’t have enough resources/troops to provide adequate security
2) When we try to establish security, we invariably create more enemies among the Iraqis
3) There may not be any moderates in Iraq left to win over to our side
#2 is why we need to be concerned about the harshness of our counter-insurgency campaign. To deny that is to really be ignorant of the situation. We don’t have enough troops to pacify the entire country, so we have to count on not pissing off more and more people. A real crackdown could succeed if we had many more troops.
If #3 is true, we might as well give up now, unless we intend to run a Stalinist police state there for the rest of our lives. Which seems ironic since that’s what Saddam was doing.
CStanley:
Great minds think alike. I too briefly wonder if this was indeed an instance of good cop-bad cop, but that would be out of character.
This is because the ability to prioritize and find consensus between the big players — the White House, Pentagon, Coalition command, Iraq government, Iraq army and Iraq security forces — has been mediocre at best. Even the lines of communication are extremely frayed.
I agree, that’s reason for doubt, Shaun. I guess my eternally optimistic side hopes that the “last chance” mentality (and war weariness and political pressures from all sides) may have forced all elements to find consensus and fix the communication issues.
Gray You are probably right is your suspicions about the Austrian rifles. Smells like a plant to buttress the Pentago briefing this weekend. Seems the DoState annouced the sale and sanctions on the Austrian maker in 25 December , 2005. Another source has the sale in August 2005. Why does the UK Telegraph make this a story yesterday?
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2005&m=December&x=20051228125201ASesuarK0.4326593
Gray Since you speak German, maybe you can find German and Austrian sources related to stoty now and in 2005.
C Stanley:
The last chance was moments before the explosives that destroyed the Golden Mosque in Samarra were detonated a year ago, and even then the U.S. had “won” the war but lost the occupation.
Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, too little, too late.
The comments here are extremely interesting and informative. So, forgive me, if I add a sour note.
I think Westerners are at a disadbantage when trying to decode the motivations and strategies of the Mideast. Centruries of tribal deal making and deal breaking have developed a complex and subtle methodology in strategies in the Mideast that can run rings around the more linear (Pont A to poing B) thinking in the West.
It hardly matters whether alSadr fled or sauntered to Iran, or whether he is still sitting in Sadr City. He is probably thinking long term plans, no matter where he is. My guess is that he has decided it is not worth it for him to waste manpower and gunpower in fighting the surge, when he can simply wait it out and procede with his agenda when it is more expedient.
AlMaliki, too, is operating on several different levels at one time. He has to placate his Shiite backers. He has to placate the US to keep the money flowing. From time to time, he has to do something to show he is not a US stooge. The recent ‘surprise’ in Baghdad could well have been a simple show of independence, an act without US prodding or permission.
While we, and Washington, debate the surge, all the players in the Mideast are probably hard at work planning for what comes after.
And that is the real fly in the ointment. The surge, successful or not, is temporary. It will not bring about a change of heart in the insurgents, radicals, militias or political maneuverers.
The real question is: what will we do once the surge is over?
Any real change would take decades, even generations, with many ups and downs and zigzags.
We will be debating Iraq for as long as can be foreseen. And during all that time, Afghanistan will be cast in the shadows.
I don’t see anything but gloom ahead.
Please show me that I’m wrong.
I actually see this operation as a good sign. The fact Maliki can even make a sweeping independent move came as a bit of a surprise to me. No doubt it will have limited impact on the Shiite militias, but it shows they are capable of actually doing something.
Rudi said: “Gray You are probably right is your suspicions about the Austrian rifles. Smells like a plant to buttress the Pentago briefing this weekend. Seems the DoState annouced the sale and sanctions on the Austrian maker in 25 December , 2005. Another source has the sale in August 2005. Why does the UK Telegraph make this a story yesterday?”
There could be a number of reasons for that. But I am wondering why other journalists haven’t followed it up, checking serial numbers etc. After all, it seems like a smoking gun (literally and figuratively).
Clearly, the Telegraph was “given” this story. Much like the NYT seems to have been “given” its stories by leakers with agendas in the intelligence community.
Rudi, didn’t you find it odd that it was the NYT that was trumpeting anti-Iran stories (given its anti-Bush tendencies, plus its embarrassment over its pre-war boosterism)? Can they do nothing else but reguritate what they are fed by people in power (like the Washington Post’s front page debacle over the Levin report last week).
I think this seeing here Shaun’s update about the helicopter story. Shaun’s posts on this, with your comments about the Strelas and links, were out ahead of the MSM…which is damn bizarre considering the disproportion in resources between the NYT and Shaun.
I fear the rifle story has gone down the “memory hole”.
“Gray Since you speak German, maybe you can find German and Austrian sources related to stoty now and in 2005.”
I’m only now back home (hey, it’s Valentine day, right?) and did a quick search. Found this ‘Der Standard’ (leading newspaper in Austria) story with quotes from the owner of Steyr Mannlicher. He insist that the last time rifles were sold to Iran was in February 2004, exactly 800 units, with approval of the government. He’s waiting for US agencies to submit the serial numbers for further investigations. Such a check would only take one day, but nobody contacted him so far, he says. Austrian administraion officials deny having received informations from the US,too. However, an official spokesman says, the weapons were ordered in October 2003, and the export finally approved in Novemeber 2004, after a necessary document arrived only a month earlier. That’s what I don’t understand, they delivered without approval? But Austria is very ‘laissez faire’, it’s possible that they acted on a provisional authorisation.
One way or the other, the story about 2005 makes no real sense. And it’s strange that US intelligence never checked with the factory to get certainty about the purchaser of those weapons.
Another Austrian newspaper says, the owner of Steyr Mannlicher declared the rifles were delivered in several steps between November 2004 and February 2005. Now this starts to make sense.
And here a newspaper says, only 100 rifles were delivered.
Sry, but I give up for today, Looks the the f***ing Austrian MSM needs more time to get their stories straight.
The fact Maliki can even make a sweeping independent move came as a bit of a surprise to me. No doubt it will have limited impact on the Shiite militias, but it shows they are capable of actually doing something.”
Yes, but what are they doing? And what are we doing?
“Shiite militias’ covers a lot of ground. AlSadr has a rival in the mullah who heads SCIRI (The Supreme Council for an Islamic Revolution) who has his men in government just like alSadr does. When the US gets lists of suspects to arrest, these people would be prone to hand over members from the rival group.
There are so many plots and subplots, that it would be easy for the US to get entangled in their web, to be used as a tool in their own power struggles. I just worry. I hope I worry too much.