T Nation

New Iraqi Strategy

Wanted to start a thread to monitor the new offensive in Iraq.

Sounds like the U.S. is getting tough from day one:

www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/11/D8MJBO1G0.html

From the above link:

More U.S. troops will mean more wasted blood and more people killed," Ahmed said. “The violence will surge unless U.S. administration decides to curb militiamen who are part of the Iraqi government.”

Abdel-Karim Jassim, a 44-year-old Shiite trader, said he had hoped Bush would come up with something other than the troop increase.

“Sending more troops will not solve the problem,” he said, although he acknowledged that “Iraqis cannot handle security issue on their own because of the sectarian divisions and the strong militias and insurgents.”

I’m not holding my breath. I think both more troops than were sent and a poltiical solution aimed at stemming the sectarian violence are required to make any meaningful difference. But I hope I’m wrong.

Olbermann: A Look Backward at the Commander’s Credibility
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/10/olbermann-a-look-backward-at-the-commanders-credibility/

[quote]storey420 wrote:
From the above link:

More U.S. troops will mean more wasted blood and more people killed," Ahmed said. “The violence will surge unless U.S. administration decides to curb militiamen who are part of the Iraqi government.”

Abdel-Karim Jassim, a 44-year-old Shiite trader, said he had hoped Bush would come up with something other than the troop increase.

“Sending more troops will not solve the problem,” he said, although he acknowledged that “Iraqis cannot handle security issue on their own because of the sectarian divisions and the strong militias and insurgents.”

[/quote]

Here’s to hoping we lose!!!

Signed,

The only weiner in Texas (storey)

A small mind is a tidy mind.

Here’s a good one… IRAN… IRAN is arming the insurgents in Iraq…

US threatens Iran over its Iraq ‘meddling’
The United States has delivered a blunt warning to Iran that it will not “stand idly by and let these activities continue” if Teheran persists in its support for insurgents in Iraq, and pointedly declined to rule out military action.

Me thinks NOT…

Quarter-million American weapons missing in Iraq
Oct 30, 2006
Hundreds of thousands of military weapons sent to Iraq for use by Iraqi Security Forces are missing and presumed in the hands of insurgents who use those weapons to kill Iraqi civilians and American soldiers, a government report admits.

The U.S. military cannot account for about 278,000 weapons destined for 325,500 members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

The weapons had been purchased for the Iraqis as of August, and had apparently not complied with a requirement to register the serial numbers of all the weapons, the report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction concluded.

The report found that about $133 million of Iraqi reconstruction funds had been used to buy some 370,000 small arms ranging from semiautomatic pistols to heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers…
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/news/publish/FUBAR_35/9845.shtml

Where did the Iraqi guns go?
The American military did not even take the elementary step of recording the serial numbers of nearly half a million weapons provided to Iraqis, the inspector general found, making it impossible to track or identify any that might be in the wrong hands
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/10/where_did_the_i.html

Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq
October 25, 2004
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq’s most sensitive former military installations.

The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man’s land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year

American weapons experts say their immediate concern is that the explosives could be used in major bombing attacks against American or Iraqi forces: the explosives, mainly HMX and RDX, could produce bombs strong enough to shatter airplanes or tear apart buildings…

Five Tons of C4 Explosives Stolen in Iraq
December 02, 2006
Five tons of C-4 explosives were stolen from the warehouses of Iraqi Defense Ministry. It was not certain by whom or when the plastic explosives in the warehouse were stolen…
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20061203&hn=38854

The Mother Of All Heists - 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft Reports On Disappearance Of More Than $500 Million To Equip Iraqi Army
Oct. 22, 2006
(CBS) More than half a billion dollars earmarked to fight the insurgency in Iraq was stolen by people the U.S. had entrusted to run the country’s Ministry of Defense before the 2005 elections, according to Iraqi investigators.

Iraq’s former minister of finance says coalition members like the U.S. and Britain are doing little to help recover the money or catch suspects, most of whom fled the country…

The case is one of 2,000 Iraqi government corruption cases the judge’s commission is handling that, all told, involve $7.5 billion.

No one in the U.S. government would speak on camera about the case. But U.S. officials say this was Iraqi money spent by a sovereign Iraqi government and therefore is the Iraqis’ business.

Not only are WE arming the insurgency, we’re sending over more targets for them to hone their skills on…

Goodbye darlin…hello Vietnam…

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Here’s a good one… IRAN… IRAN is arming the insurgents in Iraq…

US threatens Iran over its Iraq ‘meddling’
The United States has delivered a blunt warning to Iran that it will not “stand idly by and let these activities continue” if Teheran persists in its support for insurgents in Iraq, and pointedly declined to rule out military action.

Me thinks NOT…

Quarter-million American weapons missing in Iraq
Oct 30, 2006
Hundreds of thousands of military weapons sent to Iraq for use by Iraqi Security Forces are missing and presumed in the hands of insurgents who use those weapons to kill Iraqi civilians and American soldiers, a government report admits.

The U.S. military cannot account for about 278,000 weapons destined for 325,500 members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

The weapons had been purchased for the Iraqis as of August, and had apparently not complied with a requirement to register the serial numbers of all the weapons, the report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction concluded.

The report found that about $133 million of Iraqi reconstruction funds had been used to buy some 370,000 small arms ranging from semiautomatic pistols to heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers…
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/news/publish/FUBAR_35/9845.shtml

Where did the Iraqi guns go?
The American military did not even take the elementary step of recording the serial numbers of nearly half a million weapons provided to Iraqis, the inspector general found, making it impossible to track or identify any that might be in the wrong hands
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/10/where_did_the_i.html

Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq
October 25, 2004
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq’s most sensitive former military installations.

The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man’s land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year

American weapons experts say their immediate concern is that the explosives could be used in major bombing attacks against American or Iraqi forces: the explosives, mainly HMX and RDX, could produce bombs strong enough to shatter airplanes or tear apart buildings…

Five Tons of C4 Explosives Stolen in Iraq
December 02, 2006
Five tons of C-4 explosives were stolen from the warehouses of Iraqi Defense Ministry. It was not certain by whom or when the plastic explosives in the warehouse were stolen…
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20061203&hn=38854

The Mother Of All Heists - 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft Reports On Disappearance Of More Than $500 Million To Equip Iraqi Army
Oct. 22, 2006
(CBS) More than half a billion dollars earmarked to fight the insurgency in Iraq was stolen by people the U.S. had entrusted to run the country’s Ministry of Defense before the 2005 elections, according to Iraqi investigators.

Iraq’s former minister of finance says coalition members like the U.S. and Britain are doing little to help recover the money or catch suspects, most of whom fled the country…

The case is one of 2,000 Iraqi government corruption cases the judge’s commission is handling that, all told, involve $7.5 billion.

No one in the U.S. government would speak on camera about the case. But U.S. officials say this was Iraqi money spent by a sovereign Iraqi government and therefore is the Iraqis’ business.

Not only are WE arming the insurgency, we’re sending over more targets for them to hone their skills on…
[/quote]

Why did you say “methinks not” in respects to Iran arming and training insurgents? How does stolen American made Iraqi security weapons negate Iran’s involvement? Two separate issues.

Good start. Now if they’ll cut them loose on the cities used by radical clerics and their militias as bases of operations.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Good start. Now if they’ll cut them loose on the cities used by radical clerics and their militias as bases of operations.[/quote]

I agree. We’ll see if Maliki lives up to his word. If they are disarming/eliminating the shiites as well as sunni militias, I think it will help with unity.

JeffR

New Strategy? As in “strategy”? So, anybody care to explain the strategy change to me…

I know a lot of people feel the solution is simply to kick more asses harder, but if there’s actually a strategy shift, wake me up so I can see it in action.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why did you say “methinks not” in respects to Iran arming and training insurgents? How does stolen American made Iraqi security weapons negate Iran’s involvement? Two separate issues.[/quote]

British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran
Britain, whose forces have had responsibility for security in southeastern Iraq since the war began, has found nothing to support the Americans’ contention that Iran is providing weapons and training in Iraq, several senior military officials said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301577_pf.html

Because just like in the run-up to Iraq, they’re hyping the threat from Iran EVERY chance they get.

There is no reason WHATSOEVER to believe anything this administration has to say about ANYTHING. Everything said about the Iraq war was a LIE - there is not a single reason to believe anything they say about Iran. None.

If you think Iraq has gone bad - wait till we get a load of the Iran debacle. BTW, even if I thought for one second we needed to attack Iran to save the world, I sure as f**k wouldn’t want Gilligan calling the shots.

That’s the thing that should scare EVERYBODY shitless.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Good start. Now if they’ll cut them loose on the cities used by radical clerics and their militias as bases of operations.[/quote]

That would be nearly every city. Decimating populations, collective punishment and putting whole cities to the sword can be an effective method of counter-insurgency, but the political costs are astronomical in the modern world. The extensive use of terror and brutality short of the above suggested levels more often stoke the flames of rebellion than extinguish them.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Why did you say “methinks not” in respects to Iran arming and training insurgents? How does stolen American made Iraqi security weapons negate Iran’s involvement? Two separate issues.

British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran
Britain, whose forces have had responsibility for security in southeastern Iraq since the war began, has found nothing to support the Americans’ contention that Iran is providing weapons and training in Iraq, several senior military officials said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301577_pf.html

Because just like in the run-up to Iraq, they’re hyping the threat from Iran EVERY chance they get.

There is no reason WHATSOEVER to believe anything this administration has to say about ANYTHING. Everything said about the Iraq war was a LIE - there is not a single reason to believe anything they say about Iran. None.

If you think Iraq has gone bad - wait till we get a load of the Iran debacle. BTW, even if I thought for one second we needed to attack Iran to save the world, I sure as f**k wouldn’t want Gilligan calling the shots.

That’s the thing that should scare EVERYBODY shitless.[/quote]

The strategy is forward deployment out of the bases, commonly known as the green zone.

The troops will patrol and garrison, along with the Iraqi’s in the areas where the insurgents operate. It is designed to kill the enemy and hold the areas.

The switch in generals and combat commanders is to be combined with more effective tactics. Less restrictive rules of engagement which the troops have requested far more then more then additional troops. This will allow then to provoke, engage and kill the enemy and destroy his supply channels.

Lastly Bush made clear that Iran and Syria are fueling the enemy with training and supplies. If they follow thru they will stop this by hitting training camps and supply depots in those countries that are near the border. This will send a clear message that we are ready to engage them militarily. If they don’t blink then this will intensify.

Two carriers will be in place shortly. Look for one more to redeploy suddenly. That will be a good indicator as far as I’m concerned.
The sub that just dinged the Japanese frieghter was also a signal, in my opinion. The message was we have attack subs, in the Gulf, deploy yours against shipping and we’ll sink them. Nobody practices deception better then the submarine force.

If this strategy is followed thru and the military executes it properly it will greatly reduce the effectivness of the insurgency by denying them shelter and supplies. At that point the Iraqi’s can deal with it.

The only question is if the Democrats will allow it time to work. Since they opposed the plan, before it was unvieled that is doubtful. However the stakes are high, the alternative are limited and the Democrats offer no credible alternative other then withdrawing which will have dire consequences in the long term.

Look at Sen. Durbin’s response. “21K troops isn’t enough but it’s too many to put at risk”. In other words, the Democrats will oppose any strategy offered by the President, even if it is one their leadership publicy supported weeks before, until Bush agreed with it.
Did anyone expect anything different?

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Why did you say “methinks not” in respects to Iran arming and training insurgents? How does stolen American made Iraqi security weapons negate Iran’s involvement? Two separate issues.

British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran
Britain, whose forces have had responsibility for security in southeastern Iraq since the war began, has found nothing to support the Americans’ contention that Iran is providing weapons and training in Iraq, several senior military officials said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301577_pf.html

Because just like in the run-up to Iraq, they’re hyping the threat from Iran EVERY chance they get.

There is no reason WHATSOEVER to believe anything this administration has to say about ANYTHING. Everything said about the Iraq war was a LIE - there is not a single reason to believe anything they say about Iran. None.

If you think Iraq has gone bad - wait till we get a load of the Iran debacle. BTW, even if I thought for one second we needed to attack Iran to save the world, I sure as f**k wouldn’t want Gilligan calling the shots.

That’s the thing that should scare EVERYBODY shitless.[/quote]

Stop beating around the bush and blame Israel or the new world order. Then we won’t have to skip over so many posts.

[quote]hedo wrote:
The strategy is forward deployment out of the bases, commonly known as the green zone.

The troops will patrol and garrison, along with the Iraqi’s in the areas where the insurgents operate. It is designed to kill the enemy and hold the areas.

The switch in generals and combat commanders is to be combined with more effective tactics. Less restrictive rules of engagement which the troops have requested far more then more then additional troops. This will allow then to provoke, engage and kill the enemy and destroy his supply channels.

Lastly Bush made clear that Iran and Syria are fueling the enemy with training and supplies. If they follow thru they will stop this by hitting training camps and supply depots in those countries that are near the border. This will send a clear message that we are ready to engage them militarily. If they don’t blink then this will intensify.

Two carriers will be in place shortly. Look for one more to redeploy suddenly. That will be a good indicator as far as I’m concerned.
The sub that just dinged the Japanese frieghter was also a signal, in my opinion. The message was we have attack subs, in the Gulf, deploy yours against shipping and we’ll sink them. Nobody practices deception better then the submarine force.

If this strategy is followed thru and the military executes it properly it will greatly reduce the effectivness of the insurgency by denying them shelter and supplies. At that point the Iraqi’s can deal with it.

The only question is if the Democrats will allow it time to work. Since they opposed the plan, before it was unvieled that is doubtful. However the stakes are high, the alternative are limited and the Democrats offer no credible alternative other then withdrawing which will have dire consequences in the long term.

Look at Sen. Durbin’s response. “21K troops isn’t enough but it’s too many to put at risk”. In other words, the Democrats will oppose any strategy offered by the President, even if it is one their leadership publicy supported weeks before, until Bush agreed with it.
Did anyone expect anything different?[/quote]

Good explanation of the strategy, thanks for that.

However, to me it seems a bit too late for this. This rebellion is stronger than its ever been, and I don’t still don’t see us doing much more than causing more problems.

This is not a situation where we can win. Escalation in a violent occupation hasn’t worked as far as I know…India with the British, America with the British, Ireland with the British, Algeria with the French, Vietnam with the French, Vietnam with America…

Brief tidbit from Fred Thompson on the new strategy (I beg you, Fred - run in 08):

[i]In his address last night much of what the president said had been anticipated by the media ? the additional troops, the understanding that he has with the Maliki government as to their responsibilities and so forth. But I was struck by a couple of things he said that indicated not just a change in tactics but a whole new attitude with regard to what’s necessary. He?s taking the gloves off.

“In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods ? and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.”

And, contrary to the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, instead of talking to Iran and Syria the president is taking them on too.

“Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops?we will disrupt the attacks on our forces, we will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advance weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

I’ll bet that a lot of folks who support the president on this are asking themselves “what if we’d taken care of business this way two years ago?”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2UzOTBlODFjYzA3Mjk1NDJlMDczYTQ3MDBkN2FjZGQ=

[quote]hedo wrote:
Did anyone expect anything different?[/quote]

No, I didn’t expect the democrats to anything more than try to garner more political power.

God, I hate to say that.

Worse, I hate to mean it.

durbin is completely and totally worthless. The second he showed up for the response I knew he was going to offer absolutely nothing.

I was thinking about the U.S.'s withdrawl from Vietnam and the resultant 2,000,000 deaths.

In my opinion, Bush needs to put the boots on the ground. Then to hell with the obstructing democrats. Let them pull funding for body armor and munitions.

That will guarantee Republicans sweep to power in 2008 with meaningful majorities.

If that happens, they’d better not let us down again.

JeffR