Iraq and Terrorism

by Charles

I was listening to one of NPR’s hourly news updates last Wednesday, and they were talking about the bombing that killed nine of our soldiers from the 82th Airborne. They covered the who, what, when and where, but not the why and not all of the who. Because of this, their report was misleading. They stated that a "car bomb" struck the soldiers, but failed to mention that it was a suicide bombing and failed to mention that an al Qaeda affiliate claimed responsibility. By excluding the likely perpetrators, NPR is telling us only part of the story. The part they aren’t telling us is the increasing involvement of al Qaeda in these attention-getting attacks.

Read more

by Charles

In my earlier post, I touched on the importance of information operations (IO) in Iraq, noting that it is one of the five main pillars of a successful counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy. In that light, I mentioned the travails of Michael Yon, who is doing important work in reporting what is happening on the ground, yet is being shut down by a petulant general. In the cross-posted thread, Bob Owens from Newsbusters.org showed up and named names:

The General who wants to silence Yon is Brigadier General Vincent K. Brooks. In 2005, Brooks was the the lead Public Affairs Officer (PAO) for the United States Army. The stories that got Yon in trouble with Brooks were Proximity Delays and Gates of Fire. Proximity Delays got Yon in trouble, and in Gates of Fire, Yon picked up a rifle and joined combat to help LTC Erik Kurilla, who had been shot three times by an insurgent while CSM Robert Prosser was engaged in hand-to-hand combat with another insurgent. For inserting himself into battle (which violated embed rules) to help fallen American soldiers, and then having the gall to write about it, Brooks tried to kick Yon our [out] of Iraq.

Brooks is back in Iraq, this time as deputy commanding general – support for Multinational Division-Baghdad, and he still obviously carries his grudge against Yon. I confirmed last night with Michael Yon that it is this same General Vincent K. Brooks that sent Yon the email threatening to kick him out of Iraq.

Following his RUBS post, Yon writes a lengthy entry that merits a full read (Warning: Graphic images).

Read more

by Charles

So far, there are initial signs of improvement in Baghdad. Getting soldiers out of forward operating bases (FOBs) and onto the streets appears to be beneficial. The NY Post:

Read more

by hilzoy

Apparently, the Democratic House leadership has finally got the votes to pass the Iraq supplemental bill, which appropriates money to continue the Iraq war subject to certain restrictions*, and requires the withdrawal of all troops by September 2008. Republicans oppose it, as do some liberal House members, who oppose any bill that appropriates money for the war. Others have come round, and concluded that voting for a bill with a clean deadline for withdrawal beats opposing it.

I wholeheartedly support this bill. It took me a while to conclude that the situation in Iraq was hopeless. I thought (and think) that we have a serious responsibility to the Iraqi people, and I wanted us to live up to it, and I hoped against hope that the competence of the military would somehow prevail against the incompetence of the administration. Eventually, though, even I had to give up, and ever since I have wanted us to get out, possibly leaving some force over the horizon. I realize that we can’t just withdraw in a headlong, disorganized way; that moving this many troops, while keeping those who are still there safe, is a complicated logistical undertaking, and takes time. Fine. But I’d rather it be done as soon as possible.

The Democrats are in a miserable position. Thanks to Bush’s inept prosecution of the war, there are, basically, no good options at all. And if they try to do anything at all, they will probably get blamed for whatever happens next — and whatever happens next will undoubtedly be awful. Moreover, any attempt to use the “power of the purse”, which we are forever being told is our only option, would open us to the charge of cutting off the troops. If Democrats cared only about political astuteness and not at all about either our country’s interests or about Iraq, then the thing to do would clearly be to make some gesture that makes it seem as though they’re trying, but that is doomed to failure. That way everything is still Bush’s fault.

There are things that fit this description a lot more clearly than what the Democrats are actually doing. Bush would veto any bill that sets a deadline for Iraq, so that’s a given. But if the Democrats passed a straightforward bill that says: we must be out by September 2008 (or whenever), then Bush could veto it with impunity. By attaching these conditions to an appropriations bill, they’re making it more likely that they will, in fact, succeed. One way or another, an appropriations bill has to pass. If it doesn’t, the Iraq war will simply run out of money. And if Bush vetoes it, he’ll have to be counting on some members of Congress to back down from their position. I’m not sure I’d take that bet, in his position. He seems to me to have infuriated the Congress over the US Attorneys issue, and while normally I wouldn’t expect Congress to stick to its guns, there is, I think, a decent chance that they might.

In any case, this should be interesting. I wish it weren’t: I wish we were not in Iraq at all, and could have nice dull debates about water rights. In politics, boring is good. But we’re not living in boring times.

***

*I’ve pasted the restrictions in the bill below the fold. It took me a while to find them, so I thought I’d spare everyone else the trouble. Plus, I thought OCSteve might want to see the actual restrictions on deployments.

Read more

by Charles

The Iranian president has had better times, but he’s been looking downright beleaguered of late.  Going down the list…

The defecting defense minister.  Although it happened a month ago, Mr. Asghari is tucked away in a secret European location and presumably giving his hosts information that is damaging to the regime.  More here:

AN Iranian general who defected to the West last month had been spying on Iran since 2003 when he was recruited on an overseas business trip, according to Iranian sources.

This weekend Brigadier General Ali Reza Asgari, 63, the former deputy defence minister, is understood to be undergoing debriefing at a Nato base in Germany after he escaped from Iran, followed by his family.

A daring getaway via Damascus was organised by western intelligence agencies after it became clear that his cover was about to be blown. Iran’s notorious secret service, the Vavak, is believed to have suspected that he was a high-level mole.

According to the Iranian sources, the escape took several months to arrange. At least 10 close members of his family had to flee the country. Asgari has two sons, a daughter and several grandchildren and it is believed that all, including his daughters-in-law, are now out of Iran. Their final destination is unknown.

Asgari is said to have carried with him documents disclosing Iran’s links to terrorists in the Middle East. It is not thought that he had details of the country’s nuclear programme.

Read more

by Charles

This post is a collection of observances from people who are (or were) there.  First, some excerpts from Michael Yon, who was earlier embedded in Mosul and has since been to Baghdad and elsewhere:

Often the most dangerous places in Iraq are at the front gates of bases where suicide attackers roll in. Outside the wire—and often inside the wire—is bad-guy country. A block away from a base might as well be a hundred miles away. We rolled out in humvees for what would be about a 1,225 mile trip inside Iraq, and another portion to Germany and back.

On the 18th, we drove from Baghdad to Ramadi for a “Transfer of Authority” from the 1st Brigade 1st Armored Division, to the 1st Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division.

Geraldo Rivera was there. He’s got a cool mustache. Monte Morin of Stars & Stripes was there. Monte’s a serious war correspondent. Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno was there. Odierno is a serious general who runs a huge portion of this war. Next time Odierno comes on the news, it can be good to stop and listen.

Read more

by hilzoy

About a week ago, Katherine wrote that the issue she’d most like to ask the Democratic candidates for President about is the Bush doctrine of preventive war. It’s important, in this context, to be clear on the distinction between preventive and preemptive war. Preemptive war is a war started when you know that an enemy is about to attack you, but has not yet done so; the standard description of preemption is Daniel Webster’s: the “necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation”. Preventive war is a war started against an enemy who is not (as far as you know) actually about to attack you, but whom you regard as a threat for some other reason. Preemptive war has always been regarded as OK: if you see an enemy massing its troops at the border, entering the launch codes on its missiles, and so forth, you do not have to wait until that enemy actually strikes. Preventive war, by contrast, has not generally been regarded as OK. Nonetheless, it’s one of the pillars of the “Bush Doctrine“:

“If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. (Applause.) (…) The war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. (Applause.) In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act. (Applause.)” (emphasis added.)

I agree with Katherine that this is one of the most important questions facing Democratic candidates. Since I’m leaning towards Obama, I thought I’d see if I could figure out where he stood on this question. Short answer: He doesn’t actually come right out and say “I oppose preventive war”, but he comes pretty close. The longer answer is below the fold.

Read more