Sunday, January 28, 2007

Well, somebody's afraid of the surge 

There are, I think, two groups of people who are afraid that the "surge" might work.

I spent the morning straightening up the house with various Sunday talk shows on in the background. The conviction with which Democratic Senators aver that the "surge" will only make matters worse is startling. They do not explain how it will make matters worse, only that it is inevitable that it will. While I myself am far from certain that the planned changes in tactics, commanders, force levels, rules of engagement and tone with the Iraqi government will work, I do not understand the downside. We are always free to adopt the opposition's idea, which is to withdraw at least from the fight, if not Iraq. If Iraq is in fact the geopolitical disaster that most Democrats (and no few Republicans) claim that it is, it seems to me that the incremental geopolitical risk in the surge is small.

New York Senator Chuck Schumer seemed to give away the game -- at least implicitly -- on "Meet the Press." He quite obviously does not want the next election cycle to be "about" Iraq. One gets the sense that this sentiment is even more pronounced among the Democrats who will be vying for their party's presidential nomination. It is easy to see why: the problem of Iraq will be nothing but trouble for leading Democrats. The party activists who hold sway during the primary season will demand that candidates embrace the so-called "anti-war" agenda without reservation, but if Democrats do that too enthusiastically they will remind voters that their party has been all about defeat since 1972. Since none of them want to be caught in that Liebermanesque trap, leading Democrats are desperate for Iraq to be off the table by next fall. [UPDATE: Hillary's new and bizarre demand that all American troops be out of Iraq by January 2009 is the new, best evidence in support of my suspicions. This was a mistake on her part, for it reinforces the impression that in opposing the surge the Democrats are motivated by electoral considerations rather than an honest appraisal of the national interest.]

From the perspective of Democratic political strategy, the worst possible result would be partial success -- for conditions in Iraq to improve significantly and palpably, but not decisively. That would guarantee that Iraq would remain a central theme in the 2008 campaign, not just as fodder for attacks on Republican "incompetence," but as a problem to be solved in the future, and that would be a nightmare for the leading Democrats. This is the reason, I believe, why at least some leading Democrats are so obviously willing the surge to fail.

Interestingly, the enemy also seems to be afraid of the surge. Under the headline, "Death squad chieftains flee to beat Baghdad surge," the Times of London reported not only that the new plan was motivating "death squad chieftains" to leave the country, but that Iran was sheltering the enemy:

DEATH SQUAD leaders have fled Baghdad to evade capture or killing by American and Iraqi forces before the start of the troop “surge” and security crackdown in the capital.

A former senior Iraqi minister said most of the leaders loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical anti-American cleric, had gone into hiding in Iran.

Among those said to have fled is Abu Deraa, the Shi’ite militia leader whose appetite for sectarian savagery has been compared to that of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, who was killed last year.

This is far from unalloyed good news -- since these bastards have gone to Iran, we can't kill them and they will live to fight again. As the linked article makes clear, Prime Minister al-Maliki may have even encouraged them to flee. But scaring the death squad commanders out of the country is a good intermediate step. With the leadership gone, perhaps morale at the lower echelons will suffer, and perhaps the Iraqi army will be able to make some progress in restoring the order that is necessary to strengthen the central government.

There is an additional advantage in this, and that is in the "outing" of Iran. It is, of course, no surprise to anybody who is even remotely aware that the Islamic Republic would provide sanctuary to somebody with an apparently unquenchable "appetite for sectarian savagery." Even under the "reformist" government of John Kerry's new greatest fan, Iran was ecumenical in its willingness to do so. Nevertheless, there remain a great many people in the world -- including United States Senators -- who believe that the perfidy of Iran is an invention of the Bush administration. If the surge clarifies that little ambiguity for the next president of the United States, it will at least have served the purpose of defining the threat.


By Blogger JohnF, at Sun Jan 28, 03:42:00 PM:

Allowing these death squad "leaders" to escape just seems unbelievably inept, as our advance notice that we were coming simply let them go.

May I ask why we tipped our hand so brilliantly? What is the precedent for this? Am I forgetting that Churchill told the Nazis we were coming on D-Day or something?  

By Blogger M. Simon, at Sun Jan 28, 05:04:00 PM:

The Nazis knew we were coming.

They knew the target was France.

What they didn't know was where the landings would be Calais, further north, or Normandy.

The also didn't know when.

So yes. In effect the Fermans knew we were coming and that Frace was the place.  

By Blogger Consul-At-Arms, at Sun Jan 28, 05:48:00 PM:

The downside that one sincere questioner brought up in conversation with me was whether U.S. casualties would increase.

It's my understanding that while total casualty figures, in general, are higher when we have more troops on the ground, the casualty rates actually drop the more troops are there.

Now that doesn't take into account things like increasing the number and scale of offensive operations, but I don't see going on the offensive to be a bad thing. It's smarter than hunkering down and taking it because if you do that, "take it" you will.

On the bright side, for those idiots who enjoy similarities between Iraq and Vietnam (and they really have to work for them, most of the time), Iran has given them another one by providing a sanctuary to which the Mahdi Cong cadres can take refuge, just like Cambodia and/or NVN.  

By Blogger Assistant Village Idiot, at Sun Jan 28, 05:52:00 PM:

Shochu John, it is of course wise to be skeptical. Thanks for the reminder of the Sadrist nationalism.

Still, I imagine they stash them where they can. It's a calculated risk for both individuals and groups. The idea that it's "not too much risk" in place A will be measured against "but almost zero risk" at place B. Adding in the complexities of return, whipping up loyalty and morale, and keeping the weaponry under control, and people will make divergent decisions.

Great opportunities for infiltration.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sun Jan 28, 05:55:00 PM:

Everyone knows that the true enemy here is Iran. Now or later someone is going to have to deal with Iran. If it is later it will be a nuclear Iran. That is if they decide to wait to nuke Israel, which is a bit of a delusional hope. Al Sadr has been getting a lot of money and support from Iran. We have been capturing Iranian agents in Iraq. Iraq will never be secure as long as the mullahs are in power.

If you go look at bookstands in the major retail stores you will see that 2 or 3 of the feature titles will have Iran in it. Iran is the big white elephant in the room that Bush tries not to mention but is forced to. Bush's ratings aren't low because the 40-45% of the country that opposed the Iraq war from the beginning switched their opinion. His ratings are low because the large portion of his base that thought the goal was sweeping change in the middle east is pissed he hasn't called Iran out and demonstrated that he plans on dealing with them in a credible manner. We are losing momentum in this conflict because Bush is not dealing credibly with the true threat in the middle east and the jacksonian component of Bush's base is deserting him.

If Bush calls out Iran and he takes them on his popularity will return to what it was when people thought Iraq was just a first step.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sun Jan 28, 06:26:00 PM:

If the surge works we will never know, the media will bury success on page 128 and lead with the most minute failures.

CO Pessimist  

By Blogger Purple Avenger, at Sun Jan 28, 06:42:00 PM:

Secondly, why even move them out of Sadr City?

Because even Iraq lives in the era of mass media and cell phone cameras?

Hard to be anonymous when your picture is floating around.  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Mon Jan 29, 09:51:00 AM:

"Of the main Shi’ite operators in Iraq, Moqtada is the one least close to Iran."

Flat wrong. He travels to Iran regularly for 'consultations' with senior clerical figures, and has for the last few years. The Mahdi Army (his personal militia) is supplied and trained by the Iranians. Iranian agents have been arrested WITH his henchmen, and Iranian weapons and explosives caches belonging to the Mahdi Army have been seized. (recently; I read about it last week on BBC: Arabic)

Isn't it funny how none of this makes it into the US press?  

By Blogger Georg Felis, at Mon Jan 29, 10:02:00 AM:

Two things.
1. The source for the London Times story is “former senior Iraqi minister”, an anonymous title I give about as much credibility to as Jamil Hussein, and given the state of normal sources in that country I have good reason.
2. If it is true, and he did flee to Iran, what makes you think he is any safer there than in Iraq?  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Mon Jan 29, 01:48:00 PM:

Dawnfire82: "The American people trust the Dems more to handle Iraq than they trust the GOP."

Nope. As many people voted against the GOP culture of corruption as voted against the war.

If not for Foley, Cunningham, Delay et al, it is doubtful the GOP would have lost control of the House.

Prove I'm wrong: Let the Dems nominate a slate of McGovernites and see how well they do.  

By Blogger skipsailing, at Mon Jan 29, 06:31:00 PM:

Oh please.

Of the main Shi’ite operators in Iraq, Moqtada is the one least close to Iran. He’s a nationalist, Iraqi through and through

He and Hassan Nasrallah got the same training from the same ayatollahs.

he's an "iraqi nationalist" because it suits him at this juncture. tyrants need enemies and Sadr's enemy is the US. the second we leave Sadr will be doing the Hassan Nasrallah two step in B-dad. That's what his masters in Teheran want and that's what he'll deliver.  

By Blogger Pudentilla, at Mon Jan 29, 06:43:00 PM:

While I myself am far from certain that the planned changes in tactics, commanders, force levels, rules of engagement and tone with the Iraqi government will work, I do not understand the downside.

oh, TH, you big tease you. do you think the splurge will work, or not?  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Mon Jan 29, 07:38:00 PM:

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Muqtada is an Arab or Iraqi nationalist firebrand, since pretty much everyone he and his militia have killed in the last couple of years have been Iraqi Arabs; I've always seen him as a Shiite Nationalist. And he's been in the Iranians' pocket at least since his original 'revolt' against the Coalition interim government was put down.

Party to Party comparisons aside, (like to the SCIRI) you said "of all the Shi'te operators [in Iraq], Moqtada is the one least close to Iran." Others might answer to Iranian trumpets as well, to varying degress, but he is most certainly not the least among them.

As for sources; part of my 'knowledge' just comes from being in MI and hearing things I shouldn't (I've never worked against Iran) here and there, but a lot of what leaks to open source is cought here:


It's a good site.

And as I mentioned, the recent seizing of Iranian arms and agents and Mahdi Army militants and captains were talked about in Arab language press quite a bit, but are mysteriously left out of English print. For example, I didn't see the the story on BBC Arabic to which I was referring earlier on regular English language BBC. (though I didn't look hard, te arrests of 600 militiamen including leaders and a few tons of weapons and explosives is kind of a big story)

Anon: "Dawnfire82: "The American people trust the Dems more to handle Iraq than they trust the GOP."

I, uh, didn't say that.  

By Blogger Gary Rosen, at Tue Jan 30, 01:12:00 AM:

"hucksters with agendas"

Boy, that's rich coming from someone who was burbling about Hizbullah's "peaceful" resistance in Lebanon just a few days ago. How's that workin' for ya now, pal?  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Wed Jan 31, 09:20:00 PM:

"I just visited and the second post cites Amir Taheri, who I remember fondly from his breathless and totally untrue assertions that Iran was forcing the public brandishing of religious identification. I find that hucksters with agendas are a terrible place for actual information, though they do provide previews of disinformation to come, especially when the need to create a rationale for military action arises."

If you'd gone past the second post, you might have noticed that they use all sorts of sources for their information, including major western newspapers, cable services, blogs, local middle eastern newspapers, official statements, and so forth.

"Yes, it’s kind of curious. I just popped over to the English BBC myself, and though I found many less significant stories than that would be, not a peep."

Another example of an allied success swept under the carpet. And some people still insist that we get the straight dope about Iraq from the media...  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Mon Apr 21, 04:59:00 PM:

Generic Meridia/Reductil SIBUTRAMINE HCI drug is a

prescription medication thats used to help people lose weight by acting on the appetite control centers in the brain. Studies

have shown that using Meridia helps patients lose weight and maintain weight loss for up to 2 years.

Xenical Orlistat weight loss drug blocks some of the fat

that you eat from being absorbed by your body. Orlistat is used in the management of obesity including weight loss and weight

maintenance when used with a reduced-calorie diet.

Generic Xanax Alprazolam drug without prescription is used

to treat anxiety disorders and panic attacks. Alprazolam is in a class of medications called benzodiazepines. It works by

decreasing abnormal excitement in the brain.

Generic Valium Diazepam drug is used to relieve anxiety,

muscle spasms, and seizures and to control agitation caused by alcohol withdrawal.

href="http://www.nordmed.com/valium-brand-medication.php">Valium brand medication

Generic Ativan Lorazepam is used to treat anxiety. This

drug may also be used for seizures, alcohol withdrawal, prevention of nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, tension

headache, and for sleeping trouble (insomnia).  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Dec 26, 04:13:00 AM:

韩语翻译广州同声传译上个月成交量放大广州翻译公司上海翻译公司。,德语翻译,,还令深圳各界忧虑。商务口译,料就在昨日下午稍晚时间,同传设备已经说明一切。翻译是一门严谨不容践踏的语言文化。同声传译,凡购买中国移动手机充值卡深圳同声传译翻译部署促进房地产市场健康发展措施出台,深圳翻译.深圳英语翻译 ,无需制作炫丽的界面和复杂的操作功能深圳日语翻译,中国移动后台词库地产的阴霾情绪同声传译设备租赁,是会议设备租赁深圳手机号码网,深圳手机靓号,有的用户同传设备出租会议同传系统租赁1—11月份报告昨日公布选择在线翻译会议设备租赁乘坐和所有客户一起分享奥运来临的喜悦。新疆租车,活动和网络搜索资源来获得。、地产中介、银行 广州翻译公司,用户的体验不能停留同声传译一扫而光”  

Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?