 |
|
 |
| [-] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
Steve Shippert of Threats Watch reports of another wave of irresponsible government leakers that have jeopardized national security by divulging information on deployed forces in Iraq.
That senior Administration official, a suspected collaborator in the leak conspiracy exposed initially by the Los Angeles Times, has been under fire in certain congressional circles as the potential target of hearings, investigations and charges of war crimes.ThreatsWatch will be utilizing its many military, intelligence, policy maker and administration sources to get to the bottom of what is proving to be yet another intolerable breach of confidentiality and information security at the highest levels of government. This clearly politically motivated and coordinated endeavor to sabotage future policy aims can be neither dismissed nor allowed to proceed unpunished.
We commend the overall media restraint displayed thus far in aiding the damaging propagation of this leaked data. While ThreatsWatch has often been critical of the major US media outlets in this regard, it must be acknowledged that this is a restraint they have been admirably consistent in demonstrating regarding this type of unnecessary wartime data that clearly serves no public service in exposing further.
We will keep readers updated as we ferret out the source, aims and damaging consequences associated with these irresponsible and unpardonable concerted acts.
There used to be a time when public service ads reminding Americans of the dangers of revealing too much information were advertised and encouraged Americans to be discreet in their communication to prevent restricted information from being leaked to the enemy.
These ads were created by the The War Advertising Council during WWII, now just called the Ad Council due to peace time.
I think the "War" Ad Council need to come back along with these ads:
Steve is keeping updates on this.
Recently, John McCain put out an ad attacking Barack Obama for his celebrity, comparing him to Britney Spears.
Slate V imagines what online video backlash would look like… How would an Obama fan as devoted as the “Leave Britney Alone” guy react to attacks against Obama?
Thanks Jennifer
Why isn't this in the news?...
Iraq’s Interior Minister Thanks U.S. Troops for Liberating Iraq -- [CNS News]
A top Iraqi official visited wounded American troops at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., Tuesday to thank them for their part in ending Saddam Hussein’s rule in his country.
“We have come … to express our gratitude and appreciation for the sacrifices made by these great warriors, soldiers, in freeing the Iraqi people and in helping us in Iraq recover from tyranny and dictatorship,” Jawad Karim al-Bolani, Iraq’s minister of the interior, said through a translator to a handful of journalists in the lobby of the medical center.
...probably because all the major networks are following some other guy
But those at Walter Reed are glad to be appreciated and supported;
“We also want to express our gratitude to the families of all these great men and women and express how important their sacrifices are for our nation,” he added.
wish some other guy could have shown some gratitude.
Bolani’s visit with troops comes on the heels of Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) recent trip to the Middle East, where the Democratic presidential candidate caused a stir when he canceled a planned visit to wounded American soldiers.
And the Iraqi PM didn't make a political brouhaha about it.
The Iraqi government official, who didn’t mention presidential politics, said that he also wanted to visit Walter Reed because it was a “great institution.” “(We wanted) to witness firsthand the level of technical (and) medical sophistication that is being practiced here so that we may learn from it to help our foreign wounded and the many, many victims of terrorism and violence in Iraq,” Bolani added.
This is great, our troops deserve this and so much more.
To embed this video on your website (and please do...) copy and paste the following code:
<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/AcWCZI3NKg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="400" height="285" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"> </embed>
Part one of this series is here.
Major Smith and Colonel MacFarland's Military Review article can be found here, and should be read in its entirety.
The Guardian video can be viewed in full here.
A Stars and Stripes homecoming tribute (pdf) to the Ready First Combat Team can be found here.
Recent Mudville entries on this topic:
Earlier coverage cited in the video series:
Saluting the 3rd ACR (February, 2006)
Anbar Rising (September, 2006)
Close Air Support (November, 2006)
Links to most other reports cited in the video can be found in the above links, but additional links will be added to this post as time permits.
MilBlogs TV is funded by readers like you. Please help MilBlogs TV grow.
Script:
Colonel MacFarland did brief the media on September 29, 2006. Unfortunately, with congressional elections looming little news from Iraq beyond the death toll was provided to Americans at the time.
For example, Time magazine covers from the month following featured the looming war with Iran, a reporter wounded in Iraq, evolution, the end of the Republican Party, and a feature on "the next president". The New York Times front-page Iraq stories detailed a new book claiming that President Bush ignored warnings on Iraq on the 29th, and a story that the US might cut funding to the abusive Iraqi police on the 30th.
So with great pride we now present the world premier of Colonel MacFarland's September 29, 2006 briefing to the American media from Ramadi...
BREAK
Ignored by traditional western media, the story of the Anbar awakening was told only in Arab media and in American milblogs at the time
While Colonel MacFarland didn't use the term, as reported in part one of this series, The story of what would come to be known as the "Anbar Awakening" was first revealed in a little-noticed February, 2005 Time magazine article by Michael Ware.
A June, 2005 London Times report headlined "US in Talks with Iraq Rebels" would cause a bit more of a stir. (A follow-up story in the Washington Post would reveal the "insurgent outreach" program had been approved in August, 2004.)
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld answered questions about the effort on Fox News Sunday that week. The secretary announced that such meetings "go on all the time” and described efforts to "split local insurgents off from the al Qaeda/foreign fighters group."
He dismissed any need for additional US troops in Iraq, stating emphatically that Iraqis - not American troops, were going to win the battle against the insurgency in their country.
His confidence was based on expectations that the Iraqis would very soon reject the brutality practiced by the radical groups in their midst.
Reports of conflict between al Qaeda and Sunni groups would surface periodically thereafter, but would often blend into the emerging "civil war in Iraq" theme.
In June, the death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi in a coalition air attack would result in a new leader for the group, and within days of Colonel MacFarland's announcement of the Anbar sheik's movement (limited at the time to Ramadi but then known as the "Anbar salvation council") Abu Ayyub al Masri would offer "amnesty" to the sheiks if they would return to his control before the end of Ramadan.
"Return to your religion and homeland before we defeat you", the new al Qaeda leader commanded, "and you will have peace and security. We will not touch you but with kindness. You must first declare your sincere repentance in front of your tribes and families and inform us by whatever means, lest we make a mistake [and kill you]. You should put your hands in the hands of your brothers and sons, the mujahideen, for peace and security to return to our homes and expel the invader and to expel the occupier from our midst in this blessed month"
His response came from Sheik Sattar Abu-Risha. – Though little known outside Ramadi, the Sheik was in the process of turning the tide of the war in Iraq
"I do not know what kind of authority he enjoys.” The sheik stated, “Is he a prophet? Did he receive a messenger from God to give us a pardon? Are we criminals like him? Are we killers like him to be given a pardon? Or did we ask him for pardon? On the contrary, he should ask us for pardon, because he killed Iraqis, Sunnis and Shi'is. Who is he? He is only an inferior criminal. We should not grant him a pardon."
A profile of Sheik Sattar From an early 2007 BBC report...
BREAK
As Smith and MacFarland would relate in their 2008 review, Sattar was a dynamic figure willing to stand up to al Qada at a time when victory was far from certain. On 9 September he organized a tribal council attended by over 50 sheiks and the brigade commander, declaring the awakening underway and beginning a snowball effect that resulted in a growing number of tribes declaring open support for the movement or withdrawing support from al Qaeda in Iraq.
BREAK
The establishment of the Awakening was not spontaneous; it was an evolutionary movement developing over years in Iraq. But dramatic events along the way ensured its success. One of the most significant of these was the battle of Sufia, retold by Smith and MacFarland in Anbar Awakens...
BREAK
Once again,, other than milblogs readers, few would know of these events at the time. Coincidentally, the same milblogs story would include a report of Senator John McCain challenging General Casey on the need for additional troops in Baghdad and Anbar.
For while the Awakening movement was altering the course of the war in Ramadi, the terrorists fleeing that area were helping spread violence throughout Baghdad, Mosul, Baqubah, and other areas in Iraq.
In early 2007 the "surge" was announced. General David Petraeus was named commander of Multi-national force Iraq. Among his first agenda items on assuming command was a meeting with sheik Sattar.
BREAK
From the earliest days of the surge, efforts were underway to recreate the success of the Ramadi movement, and spread the awakening model throughout the country.
BREAK
General Petraeus' first press conference from Baghdad...
BREAK
AS Smith and MacFarland would later explain
"The Anbar Awakening was the result of a concerted plan executed by US forces in Ramadi.
And
Tactical victory became a strategic turning point when farsighted senior leaders, both Iraqi and American, replicated the Ramadi model throughout Anbar Province, in Baghdad, and other parts of the country, dramatically changing the Iraq security situation in the process."
The conclusion of their report sums their unit's key lesson's learned from Iraq
Accept risk in order to achieve results.
Once you gain the initiative, never give the enemy respite or refuge.
Never stop looking for another way to attack the enemy.
The tribes represent the people of Iraq, and the populace represents the “key terrain” of the conflict. The force that supports the population by taking the moral high ground has as sure an advantage in COIN as a maneuver commander who occupies dominant terrain in a conventional battle.
They close by noting,
In the end, probably the most important lesson we learned in Ramadi was that, as General Petraeus said,
“Hard is not hopeless.”
Epilogue:
The Ready First Combat Team returned to its home station in March 2007 as the first of the "surge" Units were positioned in Iraq. Over the course of about 14 months on the ground, 31 of the brigade’s soldiers were killed - among them, Capt Travis Patriquin, credited by Smith and MacFarland as the man responsible for the initial contacts and ultimate cementing of the American bond with the Ramadi Sheiks.
A police station in Ramadi is named in Capt Patriquin’s honor.
BREAK
Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha was killed by a roadside bomb at the outset of Ramadan in the western calendar year 2007. Contrary to expectations at the time, his movement survived him.
In June, 2008 his brother and new awakening leader Sheik Ahmad al-Rishawi came to America, though his visits to President Bush and members of the US Congress received little media attention.
He told the New York Sun that his message to Congress was that American soldiers should stay in Iraq for at least as long as it takes to rebuild Iraq's national army – but also repeated his brother’s earlier offer to join the battle against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
"Al Qaeda is an ideology," Sheik Ahmad told the Sun. "We can defeat them inside Iraq and we can defeat them in any country."
END
Keeping with the Anbar Awakening theme, a video from some guys who were there in '06...
These guys have more videos on their Youtube page here, including this one.
Click on computer screen Icon for full screen mode.
<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/AcSoIY3NKg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="300" height="250" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"> </embed>
To embed this on your site (note: this will be HUGE if you don't change the dimensions...):
<:embed src="http://blip.tv/play/AcSMPQA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="720" height="510" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"> <:/embed>
To embed on your web site, copy and paste this code:
<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/AcP0PY3NKg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="300" height="250" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>
Let me be crystal clear: if elected president, my first act will be to call for the immediate withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq.Reality:
<...>
Or will I? As is obvious to all but the most deluded HuffPo retard, the surge in Iraq has produced dramatic improvements in security throughout Iraq, and the roots of a stable pro-American democracy. We have the terrorists on the run, and it would obviously be crazy for us to pull our troops from the region just as we are on the verge of victory. And it is equally obvious that everything I said in the previous paragraph was designed to placate the naive hipster moonbats I brilliantly exploited to destroy the Clintons.
<...>
See what I mean? That previous paragraph should be a signal to all of you in the progressive community just how committed I am to an immediate troop withdrawal. If that's the kind of shameless bellicose jingoism it takes to temporarily fool the neocons and extra-chromosome Jebus tards, I will do it.
<...>
And that there is exactly the kind of transparent commie crap that left wing lunatics eat up. It's unfortunate that I had to participate in it during the primary season...
Obama said that after being sworn in he would give U.S. military commanders a new mission, "for us to begin a phased redeployment at a pace of one to two brigades per month, at which point we would have our combat troops out in 16 months. That's the goal that I'm setting."Next week? Who knows...(Nice that he refuses to be boxed in to that rigid timeline he's demanding, though.)
<...>
"What I will refuse to do is to get boxed in into what I consider two false choices," he said. "Either I have a rigid timeline, come hell or high water, and I am blind to anything that happens in the intervening 16 months, or, alternatively, I am completely deferring to whatever the commanders on the ground says, which is what George Bush says he's doing, in which case I'm not doing my job as commander in chief. I'm essentially, simply rubber-stamping decisions that are made on the ground.
And by the way, just because I bet the farm on our terrific troops getting handed their asses in Iraq and lost doesn't mean I was wrong:
However, Obama would not attribute the decreased violence entirely to the troop surge, which he opposed, instead saying that it was the result of "political factors inside Iraq that came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, my assessment would be correct. ... The point I was making at the time was the political dynamic was the driving force in that sectarian violence."And for good measure, "I think it's important to recognize that on the majority of issues that we've faced in terms of foreign policy, not just over the past four years but over the past six, seven years that my batting average is pretty darn good."
A fine analogy, since in baseball getting a hit three times out of ten is pretty darn good.
By the way, ABC sent an email alert on this adding that "If you wish to use this material, you must credit “Nightline.”"
I say they must credit Iowahawk.
If you are already registered for the full blogworld expo you don't need to register for the milblogs track seperately. However, if you plan to attend only the Milblog portion of the Expo, registration/attendence is free (although this isn't true of the larger blogworld expo) for milbloggers, Milblog supporters, service members/spouses/parents and those who work in the non-profit, troop support field.
1. To register for the milblogs (and and only milblogs) conference, first send an email (with "Request Code" in the subject line) to andi-at-andisworld-dot-com. You'll receive a registration code via return email. (It may take a couple of days or so for you receive your code. Please don't send follow-up email or worry about it unless it's been more than seven days and you've received no response.)
2. Log in to register for the blogworld expo conference here (select "attendee registration" option.)
3. Fill out the requested information. Register for “exhibits only” (There is no milblog track listed in the registration system.) Place your registration code in the "Coupon Code" section when presented with the option. NOTE on codes:
- All O's are Zeros
- All Codes are Case Sensitive and Must be Entered Exactly as Given
- Each attendee must have their own code
- Codes are non-transferrable
4. You'll receive a ribbon at registration that will get you into the MilBlog Track.
4.5 Those registered milblogs attendees who wish to attend other portions of Blogworld Expo will need to email katie@blogworldexpo.com, tell her you are attending the milblog track and want to pay to attend another portion of the Expo and she will handle your request.
5. See you there!
Here's episode 2 of MilBlogs T.V., in which we introduce America to ... Afghanistan (and Sevendust). The choice of bands for the soundtrack might seem obvious from the start, but not until the end of the video does that really become clear...
To embed this video on your site copy and paste the following code:
<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/AcPZP43NKg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="358" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>
If you're like me you're not an HBO subscriber, and haven't seen HBO's miniseries "Generation Kill". Fortunately for us, one who did see the program has offered the following review. Even more fortunately, he's Richard S Lowry, author of "Marines in the Garden of Eden" - 'The true story of the bloodiest battle in the campaign to oust Saddam Hussein.'
That would be the battle for Nasiriyah, fought in the earliest days of the march on Baghdad, and also retold in Generation Kill. Our sincere thanks to Mr Lowry for sharing his insight here.
His review of episode one can be seen here. Now on to episode two...
Generation Kill – Part Two: The Cradle of Civilization
Review by Richard S. Lowry
Author of
Marines in the Garden of Eden
July 21, 2008
In part two, The Cradle of Civilization, Ed Burns' and Eric Wright's credibility started to erode. While the series remained visually stunning and the characters seemed like real Marines, the story started to stray from the truth.
When it comes to the battle for Nasiriyah, I will probably end up being Burns' and Wright's worst critic. I know too much about that fight to be dazzled by their literary license. The Generation Kill story is unfolding to be quite an adventure and we still cannot tell which direction the writers will be taking us. It appears that they will portray 1st Recon's enlisted Marines as gruff good guys and officers and other units as lacking in courage, intelligence and morals. Last night, I was particularly offended by the implication that 2d LAR indiscriminately killed civilians north of Nasiriyah. I was also disgusted with the distortion of the truth in the events surrounding the fight in Nasiriyah.
Let's start with March 23, 2003. The day Task Force Tarawa attacked into Nasiriyah. All of our 1st Recon "heroes" were stuck in the traffic jam, south of the city. Eleven soldiers and eighteen Marines were killed in, and around, Nasiriyah that day and about twenty Marines were wounded. Captain Eric Garcia flew the last CASEVAC at sunset. There were no other casualty evacuations that night. It was horrible to lose twenty-nine Americans in a single fight, but the number of casualties was nowhere close to the 200 claimed in Generation Kill.
Which leads me to 24 March; when our 1st Recon "heroes" arrived at the Euphrates River Bridge, there was quite a fight going on. This is absolutely true, but it was the 2d Battalion, 8th Marines, not RCT-1, that got into a large scrap at the bridge that day. The fight did not erupt until after LtCol Eddie Ray had taken his 2d LAR Battalion through "Ambush Alley." By the way, not a single shot was fired when Ray charged through the city. 2/8 sustained a few injuries in their fight, but none were serious. There was never an artillery friendly fire incident at the river. No Marines were wounded or killed by friendly artillery fire. I challenge the writers to support this claim.
It is very true that Colonel Dowdy, RCT-1's commander, hesitated and would not order his regiment through "Ambush Alley." Generals Conway and Mattis were extremely unhappy with his lack of aggressiveness. This was the second of several incidents which caused Dowdy to be the first Marine regimental commander to be relieved on the field of battle. Notwithstanding, the Marines of RCT-2 fought courageously in Nasiriyah. Colonel Ron Bailey, RCT-2's commander, drove through Ambush Alley just after 2d LAR with only a few vehicles to visit his battalion, north of the city.
Godfather 6 concluded last night's installment with a couple disagreeable statements. He claimed that the enemy "stared us down" in Nasiriyah. In fact, the enemy was decimated in Nasiriyah. 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines, another Task Force Tarawa battalion, lost eighteen brave Marines because they pressed the attack and did not give up until they had met their objectives which were the two bridges in Nasiriyah. By sunset on the 23rd, both bridges were secure and RCT-2 was waiting for RCT-1 to pass through the city. Again – the war did not revolve around the 1st Recon Battalion.
I studied the battle of Nasiriyah for quite some time. I interviewed nearly one hundred soldiers, sailors and Marines who were actually there in the fight. I am not happy with the way the writers have bent the facts to fit their story and overlooked the courageous stories of men like Major Bill Peeples; Captain Eric Garcia; Lieutenants Fred Pokorney, Brian Letendre, "Ben" Reed and Mike Seely; Sergeant William Schaffer, Corporals Nick Elliot and Pat Nixon and many, many more. Burns and Wright have lost their credibility. I will have a hard time believing anything in the last five segments.
Richard S. Lowry is the award-wining author of "The Gulf War Chronicles" and "Marines in the Garden of Eden." He served in the U.S. Navy Submarine Service from 1967-1975 and spent the time from 1975 to 2002 designing sophisticated integrated circuits for everything from aircraft avionics to home computers. He is currently working on his next book, "New Dawn," which will tell of the fight to free Fallujah. Visit www.marinesinthegardenofeden.com for more information.
This has nothing to do with Obama (who I think does a fine job of visiting the troops), but whenever I see anyone "visiting the troops" I'm reminded of this scene from one of the all-time classic war films.
Though in my memory it was R-rated for language. But my memory isn't what it used to be...
To embed the Obama video on your web site, copy and paste the following code:
<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/AcPMdQA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="270" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>
To embed this video on your site, copy and paste the following code (change dimensions if desired):
<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/AcO2AAA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="510" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>
Iraq's prime minister said on Thursday he could get violence under control in six months...Nov 30 2006:"We agree our forces need work but think that if, as we are asking, the rebuilding of our forces was in our own hands, then it would take not 12-18 months but six might be enough."
AMMAN, Nov 30 (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Thursday his government's forces would be able to take over security command from U.S. troops by June 2007 -- a move which could allow the United States to start withdrawing.A nation's leaders should be optimistic, says I.
Rough unedited video of U.S. Senators Hagel, Obama and Reed visiting and dining with troops in Afghanistan.
From what I can tell from watching this video, Senator Obama is a lefty. Who knew?
This is from the early part of the Senator's visit to the troops in the mideast. It's unedited footage and there's some bad audio in parts, but you can tell these guys love him. As I said before, he doesn't need to be afraid to debate McCain at Ft Hood on that account.
Another thing I didn't know about Obama: his grandfather served under Patti Bader's great-uncle in WWII. Small world!
"I am there to listen, but there is no doubt that my core position, which is that we need a timetable for withdrawal, ...to put more pressure on the Iraqi government, is now a position that is also held by the Iraqi government."
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has arrived in southern Iraq to meet British troops after holding talks with political leaders and US military commanders in Baghdad during an unannounced visit to the country.The PM flew by Hercules military transport plane from Baghdad to the main British base in Iraq at Basra Air Station.
Following talks with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki and President Jalal Talabani in Baghdad, Mr Brown said it was his intention to reduce UK troop numbers in the country, but insisted he would not set an "artificial timetable" to bring forces home.
Miranda:
O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world
That has such people in't!
Prospero:
'Tis new to thee.
- Shakespeare, The Tempest
*****
In comments through the (currently ongoing) While America Slept Series, recently embedded Iraq reporter Nathan Webster and I have been discussing the relative merits of the troop increase ("the surge") and the recruitment of local citizens (Awakening Movements, Sons of Iraq, Concerned local Citizens groups, former insurgents, and a host of other names - your choice - I'll use any and all below) in the fight to stabilize Iraq.
I think this comment is a reasonable statement:
To propose that any of these deeply intertwined developments would have brought us to where we are today without the influence of the others is wrong. In fact, it's absurd. Better analogies probably escape me just now, but it seems akin to arguing whether your car's engine or transmission deserve the credit for your last trip.I can add a couple of others - whether the offense or defense wins football games, or whether the guitar or drums matter more to a band. There are those who are willing to enter such arguments - I'm not among them. (Nor is Mr Webster, I should add.)
But those who follow politics are aware of the argument that "the surge" was unnecessary and pointless (or, in the extreme, a "failure") because of the rise of Iraqis (usually this argument is limited to the Anbar Awakening movement - with similar success in other areas being ignored) against militias, insurgents, JAM, or al Qaeda (again, your choice). Those who make this argument also tend to see the Awakening Movement as something that sprang forth from the sands (in spite of US presence in Iraq - or even because of American failure to pacify the region) in the late summer of 2006. (I'm not aware of anyone anywhere arguing that the "citizens" movement didn't contribute to success in Iraq. If there are such voices please let me know.)
Hopefully my position on the Iraqis or Americans debate is clear from the above. If not, the short answer is both. For those seeking a long answer, I've been working on another ongoing (though overdue for update) series here called Genesis that describes in greater detail the parallel development of both trends.
That said, the Genesis series may be a bit complex (and lengthy) for some. With that in mind, I will attempt to present a shorter timeline on the development of the "awakening councils" alone here. The staunch defenders of the "surge wasn't needed" argument will probably be surprised to discover whose point of view they currently embrace.
"What's past is prologue." as the bard wrote. This is a brief overview of developments that did not occur in isolation from others (a few references to concurrent events are included for some historical perspective on what the mainstream narrative on Iraq was at the time). For additional details and links to source material see Genesis.
August, 2004 (The Washington Times):
Other parts of the U.S. government, including the State Department and CIA, have also been holding secret meetings with Iraqi insurgent factions in an effort to stop the violence and coax them into the political process, according to U.S. government officials and others who have participated in the efforts.February, 2005 (Michael Ware/Time magazine):The military plan, approved in August 2004, seeks to make a distinction between Iraqi insurgents who are attacking U.S. troops because they are hostile to their presence, and foreign insurgents who are responsible for most of the suicide bombings -- which have killed more than 1,200 people in the past couple of months -- and whose larger political aims are unclear.
"We are ready," he says before leaving, "to work with you."June, 2005 ( The London Times):In that guarded pledge may lie the first sign that after nearly two years of fighting, parts of the insurgency in Iraq are prepared to talk and move toward putting away their arms—and the U.S. is willing to listen.
<...>
Pentagon officials say the secret contacts with insurgent leaders are being conducted mainly by U.S. diplomats and intelligence officers.
<...>
Hard-line islamist fighters like Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda group will not compromise in their campaign to create an Islamic state. But in interviews with TIME, senior Iraqi insurgent commanders said several "nationalist" rebel groups—composed predominantly of ex-military officers and what the Pentagon dubs "former regime elements"—have moved toward a strategy of "fight and negotiate."
AT a summer villa near Balad in the hills 40 miles north of Baghdad, a group of Iraqis and their American visitors recently sat down to tea. It looked like a pleasant social encounter far removed from the stresses of war, but the heavy US military presence around the isolated property signalled that an unusual meeting was taking place.June, 2005 (Fox News Sunday):After weeks of delicate negotiation involving a former Iraqi minister and senior tribal leaders, a small group of insurgent commanders apparently came face to face with four American officials seeking to establish a dialogue with the men they regard as their enemies.
The talks on June 3 were followed by a second encounter 10 days later, according to an Iraqi who said that he had attended both meetings.
CHRIS WALLACE: Let's start with these reports of these direct meetings between U.S. officials, including allegedly a representative of the Pentagon, and insurgent commanders. Did they happen, and, if so, what did they accomplish?In that same interview, Rumsfeld dismissed calls for additional troops in Iraq, stating that the Iraqis were the ones who would ultimately defeat "the insurgency":RUMSFELD: Well, the first thing I would say about the meetings is they go on all the time.
Second, the Iraqis have a sovereign government. They will decide what their relationships with various elements of insurgents will be. We facilitate those from time to time.
And if you think about it, there aren't the good guys and the bad guys over there. There are people all across the spectrum.
There's the government, people who strongly support the government, people that are leaning and not quite sure what to do, people who are leaning the other way and not quite sure what to do, and then insurgents and people who oppose it, which is a mixture: There's the jihadists, there's the Zarqawi group, there are criminals, there's the Sunni Baathists who would like to take back the government.
Meetings take place all the time...
WALLACE: But let me just ask you about this one specific idea. Is there an effort -- you talk about the spectrum of groups -- to try split off the homegrown insurgents from the foreign fighters, the Zarqawi group?
RUMSFELD: Well, sure, my goodness, yes. The first thing you want to do is split people off and get some people to be supportive.
I can understand some people would say, "Oh, there ought to be more," or, "There ought to be less." General Abizaid and General Casey are absolutely convinced, and said so publicly, that they would worry if there were more U.S. forces there, because it would require more force protection, more support troops, more targets, a heavier footprint, a more intrusive occupation force that would further alienate Iraqi people from the coalition forces and what they're trying to do.January, 2006 (USA Today):Second, the implication of the question was that we don't have enough to win against the insurgency. We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency.
"Now you actually have a wedge, or a split, between the Sunni population and al-Qaeda in Iraq," said Maj. Gen. Richard Zahner, deputy chief of staff for intelligence for multinational forces in Iraq. "It poses a significant crossroads for these groups as they look at where they head."February, 2006 (The Christian Science Monitor):The U.S. military cited incidents of insurgent infighting in a rare public description of a split:
• At least six ranking members of al-Qaeda in Iraq have been assassinated by Sunni insurgents or tribal gunmen in separate incidents since September, Zahner said. The killings are usually in retaliation for al-Qaeda's role in violence, such as the execution of local police officers, he said.
• In Ramadi, in western Iraq, he said, armed clashes have erupted between local Iraqi insurgents and al-Qaeda operatives in recent months. At least one high-ranking al-Qaeda member, Abu Khatab, was recently run out of Ramadi by insurgents loyal to the local tribe.
• Near the Syrian border, members of the Albu Mahal tribe, which attacked U.S. positions as recently as March, have lately been pointing U.S. troops to al-Qaeda hideouts, Zahner said.
Iraq's national security adviser, Mouwafak al-Rubaie, also said there is a rift in the insurgency, calling it a "a major step forward in our fight against terrorism."
Sunni Tribes Turn Against JihadisFebruary, 2006 (The London Times):Sheikh Osama al-Jadaan, head of the influential Karabila tribe in Sunni Arab-dominated western Iraq, is more politician than traditional sheikh these days. He's given up his dishdasha and Arab headdress for a pinstripe suit with a silk handkerchief in his breast pocket.
He's also turned away from supporting Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi and other foreign fighters in Iraq. "We realized that these foreign terrorists were hiding behind the veil of the noble Iraqi resistance," says Mr. Jadaan. "They claim to be striking at the US occupation, but the reality is they are killing innocent Iraqis in the markets, in mosques, in churches, and in our schools."
<...>
"The local insurgents have become part of the solution and not part of the problem," US Army Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch told reporters at a press conference last week.
Sunni Leader Killed For Joining Ceasefire TalksMarch, 2006 (The Washington Post)A SUNNI tribal leader was murdered in the Iraqi city of Ramadi a day after taking part in talks with American and Iraqi officials aimed at curbing violence there.
Sheikh Nasser Kareem al-Fahdawi, head of the al-Bu Fahad tribe and a physics professor at Anbar University, was shot by insurgents opposed to the talks in late December.
Iraqi Tribes Strike Back At InsurgentsMarch, 2006 (Reuters):Tribal chiefs in Iraq's western Anbar province and in an area near the northern city of Kirkuk, two regions teeming with insurgents, are vowing to strike back at al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni Arab-led group that is waging war against Sunni tribal leaders who are cooperating with the Iraqi government and the U.S. military.
Most Americans see Iraq civil war as likely: pollJune, 2006 (Time Magazine):WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Eight in 10 Americans believe that recent sectarian violence in Iraq has made civil war likely, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Monday.
The objective of Maliki's "national unity" policy, strongly backed by U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, involves trying to draw the Sunnis, including some mainstream insurgent groups, into the political process.While all this was ongoing, coalition forces were capturing al-Qaeda members (often on tips from Iraqi citizens) and gaining intel that ultimately led to the June attack that killed Zarqawi.
June, 2006 (Mudville)
Coalition forces kill Abu Musab Al-ZarqawiBAGHDAD, Iraq – Multi-National Force-Iraq Commanding General, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., announced the death of al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi in the following statement during a press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad June 8:
“Ladies and Gentlemen, Coalition forces killed al-Qaida terrorist leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and one of his key lieutenants, spiritual advisor Sheik Abd-Al-Rahman, yesterday, June 7, at 6:15 p.m. in an air strike against an identified, isolated safe house.
June, 2006 (Mudville):
The recently released letter from a senior al-Qaeda "advisor" to al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (captured in the aftermath of the strike that killed him) confirms the strained relationship between the factions of the terrorist organization.August/September, 2006 (Mudville. Note: While now considered "conventional wisdom" the events described in this passage were ignored by American media as they happened, and this story was broken right here in the Mudville Gazette):
<...>
It's not the attacks on Sunni Muslims that concerns the al Qaeda leadership - its just the priority of the attacks, and in the eyes of the senior leadership Zarqawi has misjudged the urgency. There will be plenty of time later to deal with Sunnis who disagree with al Qaeda's goals, as the author assures Zarqawi:
<...>
In short, work with them now, kill them last.
A first publicly-released message from Abu Hamza al-Muhajir — also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri - the late Abu Musab al Zarqawi's replacement as leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, made brief headlines in the western media late last month.November, 2006 (The London Times):
<...>
Muhajir brands his growing (and increasingly bold) Sunni opposition "traitors", demands they make a very public "repentance", and gives them until the end of Ramadan to do so. While the full translation of Muhajir's speech is not currently publicly available, one brief excerpt can be seen here:"I say to those traitors in this blessed month, the month of pardon and forgiveness," al-Muhajir wrote, "that we are declaring a general pardon for all of them, forgiving them for our blood that was spilled by your hands and your treachery. We welcome you once again. Return to your religion and homeland before we defeat you, and you will have peace and security. We will not touch you but with kindness. You must first declare your sincere repentance in front of your tribes and families and inform us by whatever means, lest we make a mistake [and kill you]. You should put your hands in the hands of your brothers and sons, the mujahideen, for peace and security to return to our homes and expel the invader and to expel the occupier from our midst in this blessed month"
<...>
Iraq's al-Iraqiyah Television interviewed Shaykh Abd al-Sattar Abu-Rishah, chieftain of the Al-Bu-Rishah tribe in al-Anbar the day following the release of Muhajir's message:Asked about his response to Al-Muhajir's statement about giving a pardon to the chieftains of Iraq, he says: "I do not know what kind of authority he enjoys. Is he a prophet? Did he receive a messenger from God to give us a pardon? Are we criminals like him? Are we killers like him to be given a pardon? Or did we ask him for pardon? On the contrary, he should ask us for pardon, because he killed Iraqis, Sunnis and Shi'is. Who is he? He is only an inferior criminal. We should not grant him a pardon."
<...>
Sheikh Sattar al-Buzayi summoned other tribal chiefs last week for a war council at his fortified home in Ramadi, the teeming, scarred capital of Iraq's Anbar province, desert heartland of the Sunni Arabs.There was a bountiful feast of beef and rice, and a vow of unrelenting battle against the common enemy -- al Qaeda.
"We have to form police and army forces from among our sons to fight these al Qaeda militants," Buzayi, who says the militants murdered his father and his brother, told Reuters.
"We have now entered a real battle. It's either us or them."
<...>
Sunni tribal leaders who have vowed to drive Al Qaida out of Iraq's most restive province met the Shiite premier on Wednesday, marking what Washington hopes will be a breakthrough alliance against militants.Sattar Al Buzayi, a Sunni shaikh from Anbar province who has emerged in recent weeks as a leader of a tribal alliance against Osama Bin Laden's followers, said he and about 15 other shaikhs had offered their cooperation to Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki.
<...>
"This is admired and respected by all Iraqis. We are fully prepared to back your efforts," said the prime minister.
While the world’s attention has been focused on Baghdad’s slide into sectarian warfare, something remarkable has been happening in Ramadi, a city of 400,000 inhabitants that al-Qaeda and its Iraqi allies have controlled since mid-2004 and would like to make the capital of their cherished Islamic caliphate.November, 2006 (Mudville):A power struggle has erupted: al-Qaeda’s reign of terror is being challenged. Sheikh Sittar and many of his fellow tribal leaders have cast their lot with the once-reviled US military.
They are persuading hundreds of their followers to sign up for the previously defunct Iraqi police. American troops are moving into a city that was, until recently, a virtual no-go area.
<...>
The US military wooed the sheikhs over what one US officer described as “hundreds of cups of chai and thousands of cigarettes”.
Sunni Leader Urges Arab Nations Not To Back Iraq's Shiite-Led GovernmentBut...A prominent Sunni religious leader is calling on the international community to end its support for Iraq's Shiite-led government.
Otherwise, he says, Iraq's escalating sectarian violence will spread throughout the Middle East.
The sheik, who heads the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq, lives in Jordan.
Sunni sheiks from Iraq's volatile Anbar province have denounced a powerful Sunni cleric as "a thug" for supporting the al-Qaida terrorist group.November 2006 (Mudville):The Anbar Salvation Council, a group of sheiks formed to resist foreign militants in Iraq, also denied accusations by cleric Harith al-Dhari that it was cozying up to the Iraqi government in exchange for money, the New York Times reported Sunday.
"We, on behalf of the Anbar tribes council, say to Harith al-Dhari: If there is a thug, it is you; if there is a killer and a kidnapper, it is you," the Times quoted Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi as saying.
Close Air Support to the Anbar Salvation CouncilDecember, 2006 - Anbar, as described in American media:Al Qaeda terrorists attacked the Abu Soda tribe in Sofia Nov. 25. In response, Coalition Forces provided support to the Abu Soda’s fight against Al Qaeda.
“The American’s have come to the aide of the Abu Soda tribe. They have understood the dire situation [that the Abu Soda are currently battling the Al Qaeda], because [the Americans] see it as a fight against a common enemy,” said Sheikh Ahmed, Sheikh of Abu Resha.
<...>
This is big. Remember al-Qaeda's threat to kill the "renegade" Sunnis after Ramadan? Since the tribes "have given their men to the Ministry of the Interior to serve as Iraqi Police" and the coalition has given significant resources in support, they're going to have a tough time delivering.
<...>
Earlier this month, in Washington, Senator McCain called for more troops...
The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report...Janury, 2007 - President Bush announces "the surge" (Mudville)The Marines' August memo, a copy of which was shared with The Washington Post, is far bleaker than some officials suggested when they described it in late summer.
Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders, and they are protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists.March, 2007 (Mudville):
Q (Through interpreter.) (Name inaudible) -- from Al Hurra. Could you confirm to us, please, that there is a dialogue between the American officials and the Mahdi Army militias and some armed groups like the Islamic Party in Iraq?The rest, as they say, is history.GEN. PETRAEUS: In an endeavor like this one, the host nation and those who are assisting it obviously are trying to determine over time who are the irreconcilables and who are the reconcilables. And they're on either end of the sectarian spectrum, of ethnic spectrums, political spectrums and so forth. And of course, what the government is trying to do, what those supporting the government are trying to do are to split the irreconcilables from the reconcilables and to make thepart of the solution rather than a continuing part of a problem, and then dealing with the irreconcilables differently. And that is certainly what the government of Iraq is doing and what those who are supporting the government of Iraq -- what the coalition is also doing, in very, very early stages.
But let's review the words of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld from June, 2005:
"And if you think about it, there aren't the good guys and the bad guys over there. There are people all across the spectrum.The next time you hear someone arguing that the Salvation Councils saved Iraq and that McCain's additional troops weren't needed, point out that they're claiming that Rumsfeld was right, that his plan worked - and ask them why they didn't support the former SecDef so staunchly and vocally when it mattered.
<...>
"Meetings take place all the time... The first thing you want to do is split people off and get some people to be supportive.
<...>
"I can understand some people would say, "Oh, there ought to be more [troops]," or, "There ought to be less." General Abizaid and General Casey are absolutely convinced, and said so publicly, that they would worry if there were more U.S. forces there, because it would require more force protection, more support troops, more targets, a heavier footprint, a more intrusive occupation force that would further alienate Iraqi people from the coalition forces and what they're trying to do."Second, the implication of the question was that we don't have enough to win against the insurgency. We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency."
Politics makes strange bedfellows: Political interests can bring together people who otherwise have little in common. This saying is adapted from a line in the play The Tempest, by William Shakespeare: “Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows.” It is spoken by a man who has been shipwrecked and finds himself seeking shelter beside a sleeping monster.
- The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002.
For more details on the above see Genesis.
For another comparison/contrast of news coverage of the Awakening Councils vs al Qaeda battle, see Decap Attacks.
Panels for the 2008 Milbogs Conference are shaping up. Yes - the Greyhawks will be there. Hope you will, too!
Am I the first one to think of that headline?
(This, btw, is a highly disciplined band.)
But why was there a civilian parachutist in the first place?
Something a bit different this week, in keeping with our the war was won theme. This is a video produced by the Third Infantry Division (aka Task Force Marne and MND-C) the surge division in Iraq.
The version of this I put up on LiveLeak drew some very positve comments. They definitely aren't all CHUD over there.
To embed this video on your web site copy and paste the following:
<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/AcK4OAA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="270" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>
(And don't miss this video - true must see TV!)
A video report, via the Dawn Patrol:
The time may be fast approaching for this battle (hopefully while avoiding this battle...)
By the way, Afghanistan has has never been missing from Mudville's coverage of the war. You can get caught up here.
(Previous entry in series here.)
"I’m reluctant to say “the war has ended,” as he did, but everything else he wrote is undoubtedly true."
- Michael Totten, on Michael Yon.
He was expanding on a brief post he'd done at his own site, in which he added that "...I’ll be back in Iraq myself soon enough, and I’ll weigh in on that question then."
And I believe he's uniquely (and superbly) qualified to do it - so I'm looking forward to his reports.
I met quite a few wandering bloggers passing through Baghdad last year. Missed a few, too.
Mike Totten stopped by on his way to and from Fallujah. He'd been through before, had seen the red zone at it's most red. But this trip was different. While we'd been hearing a little about Ramadi (specifically the awakening movement) Fallujah had all but dropped off the radar as far as media reports from Iraq. Generally this means a place is relatively peaceful, and I thought Mike's choice was interesting for that reason - what sort of story could he tell from such a place?
Turns out he could tell a damn fine story (several, in fact), and once back stateside he did. Michael Totten hadn't come looking for a tale of combat, he sought the story of Iraq.
And by coincidence, his first posted story on his travels to Fallujah prompted what would turn out to be my own final post from Iraq.
Here (with spelling errors intact) is an absurd comment left under Michael Totten's first report from Fallujah:But with that and other evidence of victory obvious in Baghdad at the time, I also noted that "Meanwhile, back in America 48 percent of respondents to a Pew Poll feel that the military effort is not going well, and 44 percent feel we are losing ground to the insurgents."Your no Micheal Yon, and your reporting seems to be all over the place. Are things better or not in the town? Seems like you give it a "Wow, I'm not in harms way since the surge helped the country, how many ways can I say things are bad over here, but not as bad. I suggest these readers go to someone who goes out on combat missions he's attached to with the ground pounders, and get a real feel of reporting. Micheal Yon.I don't want to promote any discussion of the relative merits of the various bloggers who've actually come to Iraq to cover the war first-hand - I greatly admire them all, and I've yet to find any who weren't worth reading. The more the merrier, as they say; after all, there are a million stories to tell over here - plenty to go around. But I wanted to highlight this for two reasons: one, to provide the link to Totten's Fallujah report (which should be widely read) and two, to point out something most readers here have probably seen but not noticed: two of Yon's most recent posts have actually been advice columns on suitable cameras for deployed reporters.
Such, I suppose, is the power of television.
"Well, we're drowning in information but somebody has to sort it out. So, when it came to the war, despite enormous pressure from the administration that said to the media, 'You folks in the media are being too negative. You're distorting the picture.' We had brave correspondents bringing us the carnage night after night, into our living rooms, what was going on in Iraq. And you had the anchors framing the story in such a way that it really punched through."
I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Bill Roggio in this discussion. Especially since he and I were on Camp Victory for one of the more spectacular (and, frankly, not spectacular) indirect fire attacks of the year. Bill's efforts in establishing the Long War Journal as the go-to site for front line reporting and strategic analysis on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are without equal, grass-roots media at it's finest. His site is now home to an unmatched cadre of new media war reporters, and if the mainstream media shifts their focus to Afghanistan over the coming months they'll have to work hard to catch up to LWJ, Bill never lost his focus on that corner of the war.
"I'd like to leave Iraq a little better than I found it."
I met quite a few wandering bloggers passing through Baghdad last year. Missed a few, too. One of those I missed had recently stopped updating his site - like so many other military bloggers too often do. But shortly before he deployed Mrs G received a welcome email: "As you may recall, I had to go to radio listening silence after I was warned that my writings might be a bit too strong to stay within Army regs a few months back. I'm happy to report that I am blogging again..."
He added that he was hoping to "maybe give the folks back home a little information they wouldn't otherwise get."
She replied "Great News, was looking in on you just the other day for anything new. Glad to have you back. Greyhawk asked me to pass on that he's in Baghdad. Maybe you two can get together and do lunch."
"I'd enjoy that. I will spend about two weeks at Taji sometime in mid-July...if he's in that area, I'd love to get a chance to finally meet him."
Schedules are inflexible, leisure travel impossible, and lunch was the most that could be hoped for. But it didn't happen. I'd have enjoyed getting the chance to actually speak to him face to face - I wanted him to accept the credit I thought was his. A few years before, when I'd begun writing my history of milblogs project, I'd emailed him about just how early he'd begun - I believed then (and still do) that he was the first of us all.
From reading his reply I got the impression that was a distinction he felt he didn't deserve:
"What I remember isn’t much: I started blogging on 11 Oct 01, inspired by Glenn Reynolds primarily, although I was also reading Virginia Postrel at the time. I’m sure there were other milbloggers at the time, although I can’t recall any off hand. The first I remember seeing was Sgt. Stryker. I’m not sure when he got his start. He was more of a true military guy, though, as my focus has always been more on philosophy and politics."
You can get a feel for that philosophy in a profile a local paper did on him before he deployed:
"I want to see if I can help the Iraqi Army understand a little bit about the rule of law and the importance of being professional soldiers devoted to something higher than just the local tribe or their family," he said. "But I don't know how realistic that is. I don't expect to make any huge changes. If I can make some incremental changes that's about the best I can hope for."That was Andy Olmsted, of course, in the Rocky Mountain News. He was going to lead a team doing the toughest job left to do in Iraq - fighting the last battle of the war, if you will: prepare the Iraqi Army to take the lead, and facilitate our departure. That's part of the story he'd hoped to help tell.
<...>
"I guess more than anything else, I'd like to leave Iraq a little better than I found it."
Here's the full email I quoted from above:
As you may recall, I had to go to radio listening silence after I was warned that my writings might be a bit too strong to stay within Army regs a few months back. I'm happy to report that I am blogging again, now for the Rocky Mountain News about my assignment as a MiTT commander. The blog is here, and they've done a profile of me here. I plan to take full advantage of this exposure to get the word out about what the MiTTs are doing in Iraq and maybe give the folks back home a little information they wouldn't otherwise get.Less well known was that he was also blogging at Obsidian Wings under the pseudonym G'kar. A co-blogger there would post his final entry on Andrew's own blog - an entry in which Andy announced "I'm dead. That sucks," and "I died doing a job I loved."
One who knew him better than I addressed the overwhelming attention that post received:
I think Andy would be astonished at the amount of attention his last post received. He could be pretty self-effacing that way... He'd be embarrassed by all the fuss, and genuinely surprised, but deep down, I think it would have meant the world to him. I just wish he could be here to see it.Andrew Olmsted had prepared his final post before he deployed, when the fighting at Iraq was at it's worst, as was a different sort of fighting back home. And in it he also left this message for the world:
I do ask (not that I'm in a position to enforce this) that no one try to use my death to further their political purposes. I went to Iraq and did what I did for my reasons, not yours. My life isn't a chit to be used to bludgeon people to silence on either side. If you think the U.S. should stay in Iraq, don't drag me into it by claiming that somehow my death demands us staying in Iraq. If you think the U.S. ought to get out tomorrow, don't cite my name as an example of someone's life who was wasted by our mission in Iraq. I have my own opinions about what we should do about Iraq, but since I'm not around to expound on them I'd prefer others not try and use me as some kind of moral capital to support a position I probably didn't support.Guess what, Andy... we won.
More to follow...
Continuing a series begun here.
Let's take a movie break, shall we?
There's a full screen toggle at the bottom of the video player above. Enjoy.
Multi-National Division-Center (MND-C) was formed in the early months of 2007 - a key part of the strategy commonly called "the surge". The Third Infantry Division, dubbed "Task Force Marne" in Iraq, took command of the newly defined area of operations (AO) in March of that year.
By June all surge Brigades (sub-components of the Division, each with an assigned battlespace within the MND-C AO) were in place, and full spectrum combat operations began in earnest. As noted previously, by the end of the year - after much blood and sweat equity - the need for combat ops had fallen significantly. MND-C was thus able to shift its focus to "non-lethal operations" - assisting in rebuilding Iraq. The early results of that effort can be seen in the video above.
Feel free to embed this video on your site - just copy and paste the following code:
<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/AcLbOAA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="270" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>
Part four is here.
From comments on part one:
I just returned from my second embed in Iraq, this time with the 25th Infantry north of Baghdad, and I agree completely with Michael Yon - the war in Iraq is over.I left out a significant part of the comment raising several issues somewhat off the topic immediately at hand here, but I urge one and all to read it in full on the post.It will probably be a Northern Ireland-style sectarian fight for some time, with high casualty attacks drawing attention, but not really reflecting the country as a whole.
The difference between this summer and last summer is vast. Granted, I was in two different places, but both were awful in 2007 - Bayji, and now Tarmiyah. Last year, attacks were every day. This year, IEDs were very rare and small arms were unheard of.
<...>
Michael Yon's right, and he's got a hell of a lot more knowledge than me...there's no reason for an independent journalist to go back to Iraq, though I might follow up with the same unit before they redeploy - The story of the Sons Of Iraq isn't "action-filled," but it's so interesting it deserves a much closer look than I was able to give it.Afghanistan is where the war is now; it's where it always was...
The comment was from Nathan Webster, whose latest entry at the Long War Journal can be found here. Nathan's work has also appeared (as has much good reporting from Iraq) in local coverage of the units in which he has embedded and the troops therein.
I believe Nathan Webster shares Mike Yon's POV: from the perspective of the combat reporter, the war in Iraq is over. There will still be combat, but the odds of being embedded with the right unit at the right time have dropped from slim (as it was at best outside the early surge ops or the major city battles - unless you were willing to spend a significant amount of time with one unit) to none - or at least prohibitively long.
As for Afghanistan, one aspect of realizing the Iraq war was won last fall when it happened is that by February you could point out that the conversation needed a bit more focus on that front. (Though even my February questions might be outdated now.)
Mike Yon: "But by my estimation, the Iraq War is over. We won."
I can't recall if I discussed that with Mike when he was in the States. We might have, I honestly don't remember. There's a reason Mike didn't realize until now that we had won the war, and it's a pretty good one. Mike likes to be where the fighting is, and throughout his last visit to Iraq there was fighting, and he could find it. This time last year he was reporting from Baqubah where intense battles were ongoing - but had he wanted he could have been telling the same stories from many other locations, especially the neighborhoods of Baghdad and points south that were then referred to as "the belts".
Or, from a different angle, as I wrote as the surge was barely beginning, there were a lot of missed opportunities for news media to get stories (instead of just death tolls) from Iraq:
I'm not addressing that failure here - that's a given. I actually want to point out the magnitude of the failure. Over the past week I've collected not a handful, not a dozen, but 55 such press releases here - and there are others I simply didn't have time to add. Fifty-five stories that could have been told in the way Mike did; unembellished, un-hyped, and simply factual, but with the level of detail that a press release can't provide. Fifty-five stories lacking only the teller to be told.Too late now - they blew it. (Or perhaps they didn't blow it. America is generally ignorant of Iraq, if that's what they wanted they were wildly successful.)
I wrote the piece that included the above excerpt as I was preparing to deploy myself. As we went from the hospital to the dentist to finance to all the other fine locations you must clear in order to prove that you really really want to go to Iraq we noticed every television in every waiting room tuned to the news story of the century: Anna Nicole Smith. Meanwhile, the initial briefings on the surge were delivered to empty seats.
But I was successfully poked, prodded, and stamped a-ok, and I got to go to Iraq - for my second tour. While I was there I had a different perspective than Mike Yon. I had a view of the bigger picture, knew how many missions were ongoing, knew where the fighting was, and knew how fierce it was. But a funny thing happened through the summer of '07: all the right numbers fell. Casualties - down, attacks of every sort - down, violence - down. And the right numbers rose: tips from citizens - up, trained Iraqi soldiers - up, and on and on. Amazingly, a much expected "Tet Offensive" immediately prior to General Petraeus' September briefing to Congress didn't happen. More amazingly, "violence" didn't return to high levels during Ramadan (a month that began with the General's briefing and had many folks "in the know" questioning the sanity of those who timed it) either.
"We've won the war" - I said back then. I even explained how we did it - and the shift in the narrative that was about to follow:
The narrative on Iraq - the one you see in the media, that is - is changing. Claims that "we've lost" and that American soldiers have been beaten by opponents who are righteous heroes or nine-foot tall and bullet proof are being quite subtly shifted to arguments that no potential victory (if even grudgingly acknowledged) could be worth the price. This argument may prove irresistible to those who've invested heavily in defeat.It's obvious now, of course. In fact, apparently we all knew all along, etc. etc. etc... but I suppose to really get it back then - in September, in October - when it actually happened - you had to be there.
Battles went on - and still do. "We've won" doesn't mean "it's over". And Mike Yon went where the action was, and might or might not have noticed that his options were dwindling rapidly. (Though by the end of his last visit he was writing camera reviews...) Until now, when I can imagine him asking - in advance of returning to Iraq - where the action is.
And getting the obvious answer: Not here.
(But part two is here.)
...at the Netroots Nation Conference in Austin.
I'm guessing they don't want a repeat of last year.
If you're like me you're not an HBO subscriber, and weren't able to see episode one of HBO's miniseries "Generation Kill". Fortunately for us, one who did see the program has offered the following review. Even more fortunately, he's Richard S Lowry, author of "Marines in the Garden of Eden" - 'The true story of the bloodiest battle in the campaign to oust Saddam Hussein.'
That would be the battle for Nasiriyah, fought in the earliest days of the march on Baghdad, and also retold in Generation Kill. Our sincere thanks to Mr Lowry for sharing his insight here.
Generation Kill – Get Some "Roger that!"
Review by Richard S. Lowry
Author of
Marines in the Garden of Eden
July 14, 2008
Last night, I sat with eyes glued to my television. David Simon et al have done an excellent job of bringing the Marines of the 2003 invasion into our living rooms. Part 1 – Get Some – was a stunning introduction to the series. It was visually accurate from the storm in the desert to the Skittles on the dashboard. This first installment provided an accurate introduction to the Marines and the fight.
I wasn't there, but I have dedicated my life's work to researching and writing about our conflict in Iraq. I spent three years of my life putting together the puzzle that was the story of the battle of an Nasiriyah. With my extensive knowledge of the events, I was not disappointed by Generation Kill's first installment.
That being said, I feel that a few issues that were brought up need some historical context. The Marines classically run on bubble gum and duct tape. All of the Marine Units were lacking for supplies and equipment in one way or another. They have the smallest budget of all the services and are treated like a red-headed stepchild when it comes to budgeting in the Navy Department. These shortfalls were exacerbated by the monumental military budget cuts of the 90's. In 2003, our armed forces were paying the "Peace Dividend."
As we left TEAM 1 ALPHA last night, they were headed for the Fertile Crescent. Godfather 6 surmised a