Iraq

Iraq, Political wind

Victory in Iraq is what the Democrats fear most

by  • 

On July 6, 2007, Bill Roggio showed that the New York Times misled the American people about the progress of post-surge military operations in Iraq by the latter’s citation of two-month old data to characterize the current situation in Baghdad:

On June 4, The New York Times released partial data from a classified memorandum that stated only 29 percent of Baghdad was secured, and provided little context to the status of the remaining 71 percent of Baghdad. The article was widely interpreted as heralding the failure of the Baghdad Security Plan, as four months into the operation, less than one third of Baghdad was secured. The New York Times also claimed that senior U.S. generals leaders stated Baghdad was expected to be secured by July, while General David Petraeus said this was never a realistic goal…
…
The numbers have changed dramatically in the two months since April. Today about 48 percent of Baghdad is secured, with 7 percent under the control of the Iraqi security forces in the retain phase, 16 percent of Baghdad has yet to be cleared, and about 36 percent of Baghdad is in the process of being cleared. In a little over two months, the Baghdad Security Plan resulted in a jump of about 30 percent of the neighborhoods secured (19 percent in April to 48 percent in June), a drop of neighborhoods in the disruption phase of about 25 percent (41 percent in April to 16 percent in June), and a steady state of neighborhoods in the clearance phase (about 35 percent).

The Times and the cut and run crowd (Democrats and Republicans) have to lie for the America people will not demand a time-tabled withdrawal from Iraq as long as our troops are making progress there. Fear not, leftists, liberal Democrats, and happy footed Republicans. Even when it is not good news, the biased mainstream media comes out in support of the enemy [I’ve highlighted the aiders and abettors]:

Al Qaeda in Iraq conducted a major mass casualty attack in the town of Amirli in northern Salahadin province, and two others near the Iranian border in Diyala. The suicide bomb in Amirli was massive, and the results devastating. A suicide truck bomber “laden with two tons of explosives detonated in an outdoor market,” CNN reported. The high estimates put the number of killed at 150 and the wounded at well over 250. Most of those killed were women and children. Al Qaeda in Iraq is probing at the seams of the joint Coalition and Iraqi operations… The attacks on the Shia and Kurdish villages are likely attempts to incite further sectarian violence as well as to secure a possible route to flee Iraq into Iran.
…
The attacks in northern Salahadin and along the Iranian border highlight the progress of the Baghdad Security Plan, al Qaeda’s capabilities in Diyala current holes in the Iraqi security Forces in the region. First, the major attacks were conducted for away from the center of gravity in Iraq, which is Baghdad, or even the center of gravity in Diyala, which is Baqubah. A major goal of the Baghdad Security Plan is to secure the capital and the outlying regions.

Yet despite the location of the attacks, the Associated Press identified the attacks as occurring in Baghdad (See “Suicide bombings kills 73 people in Baghdad.”) Northern Salahadin and Diyala provinces quite distant from Baghdad.

Those deliberate media lies preface what will occur this week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s renewed push for a scheduled withdrawal of our troops from Iraq:

“We haven’t done enough,” said Mr. Reid, a onetime moderate [Editor — Lie alert: Senator Reid has always been a liberal] who has evolved into one of the party’s most fervent critics of the war.
…
Sensing momentum from the new Republican defections, Mr. Reid and other leading Democrats intend to force a series of votes over the next two weeks on proposals to withdraw troops and limit spending. Democrats are increasingly confident they can assemble majority opposition to administration policies.

“It is going to be harder for Republicans to not sign on to something with bite in it, a clear Congressional assessment that change is needed,” said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee. “I think it is more likely there will be a majority around here that say we should begin to redeploy some forces by a certain date, and I hope it would be a larger majority.”

The coming debate will provide a showcase for senators from both parties to debate Iraq war strategy. The four Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate are expected to push their own antiwar proposals and views, and contrast their stances with those of Republicans, notably Senator John McCain of Arizona, who has been among the strongest supporters of the war.

The Times added one bit of truth, apparently to “balance” their report:

The Democratic inability to bring quick change, coupled with a Republican backlash to the rejected immigration proposal, has sent Congressional ratings plummeting. “The Democratic Congress has lower ratings than President Bush,” said Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas. “You have to try hard to do that.”

Oh, by the way, the editors — that vaunted group of military experts at the Times — also provided some advice to the Bush administration on how to withdraw from Iraq in an editorial they entitled The Road Home:

The United States has about 160,000 troops and millions of tons of military gear inside Iraq. Getting that force out safely will be a formidable challenge. The main road south to Kuwait is notoriously vulnerable to roadside bomb attacks. Soldiers, weapons and vehicles will need to be deployed to secure bases while airlift and sealift operations are organized. Withdrawal routes will have to be guarded. The exit must be everything the invasion was not: based on reality and backed by adequate resources.

The United States should explore using Kurdish territory in the north of Iraq as a secure staging area. Being able to use bases and ports in Turkey would also make withdrawal faster and safer. Turkey has been an inconsistent ally in this war, but like other nations, it should realize that shouldering part of the burden of the aftermath is in its own interest.

Cut and run most of our troops, the Times says, but leave a few nearby to ignore the bloodbath and take an occasional Clinton-like pot shot at al Qaeda in Iraq without actually having forces on the ground to identify them from the civil war’s opponents:

Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.
…
Leaving troops in Iraq might make it too easy — and too tempting — to get drawn back into the civil war and confirm suspicions that Washington’s real goal was to secure permanent bases in Iraq. Mounting attacks from other countries could endanger those nations’ governments.
…
The White House should make this choice after consultation with Congress and the other countries in the region, whose opinions the Bush administration has essentially ignored. The bottom line: the Pentagon needs enough force to stage effective raids and airstrikes against terrorist forces in Iraq, but not enough to resume large-scale combat.

The Times hopes the international community will dissuade Turkey and Iran from interferring and fails to mention that Saudi Arabia will surely aide the Sunni minority against the Shiites in a civil war.

What the Times and the Democrats fear most is that the current plan will continue to make progress in Iraq, eventually secure Baghdad, and start to clear al Qaeda from the outlying regions. That would kill a bunch of terrorists that we would not have to contend with elsewhere, leave the Democratic Party’s candidates for President in ’08 looking even more pathetic, and ruin Senator Chuck Hagel’s wishful thinking that a Democrat in the Oval office will appoint him as the Secretary of Defense in 2009.

Iran, Iraq, War on Terror

Iraq: Maliki objects to Sadr City raids; civilian casualties down

by  • 

The Los Angeles Times reports a successful U.S. led raid into Sadr City to capture or kill terrorists believed to have ties with Iran angered Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki:

July 1, 2007 – BAGHDAD — A U.S. search early Saturday for fighters allegedly linked to Iran turned into a battle in which the military said it killed 26 militants. The Iraqi government rebuked the Americans for carrying out the raid in a Baghdad neighborhood without its permission, and local leaders said many innocent bystanders had been hurt.

The raid could stir further difficulties for Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, whose relationship is already rocky with Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr. Maliki, in charge of a fractious coalition government, is locked in a confrontation with Iraq’s leading Sunni bloc, which holds 44 seats in the 275-member parliament, over an arrest warrant for Iraq’s culture minister, who is a Sunni. The Sunnis have withdrawn from the Cabinet over the warrant for Asad Kamal Hashimi in the slayings of two sons of an independent Sunni legislator.

The military could face a backlash from Maliki’s government over the early morning raids in Sadr City, the bastion of Sadr’s Al Mahdi militia and home to more than 2.5 million people. A failure to stand up to the Americans might further erode backing for Maliki’s fragile coalition government among the general Shiite population, which forms the bulwark of his support.

Maliki, who has been in a tug of war with U.S. commanders over raids in Sadr City, quickly issued a statement criticizing the Americans for not clearing the operation with the Iraqi government. He said the government “refuses” to permit the U.S. to “carry out any military operation in any Iraqi province or city without first acquiring permission from the leadership of the Iraqi forces.”

The U.S. military said the 26 militants who were killed had attacked soldiers with small arms, rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs. The troops also detained 17 militants during the operation against extremists with “close ties to Iranian terror networks,” the military said.
…
Maliki has signed off on raids in Sadr City on a case-by-case basis, but this time he seemed unwilling to back the targeting of Sadr’s militia.

Last fall, Maliki blocked the Americans from carrying out raids in Sadr City. But with the start of the U.S. troop buildup in February, the military secured a guarantee from Maliki to be allowed to go after Sadr militiamen if they were considered “rogue members” affiliated with Iran.

With Maliki in danger of a Sunni withdrawal from the political process, the prime minister might be rethinking his strategy toward the Sadr loyalists, whose six Cabinet members quit in April and whose 33-member bloc started boycotting parliament two weeks ago to protest the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra.

In other developments … In south Baghdad, an armor-piercing bomb believed to have been manufactured in Iran killed a U.S. soldier and wounded three, the Army said.

While the Associated Press reports civilian deaths dropped by 50% last month and the surge is making progress, casualties among both Iraqi and U.S. forces remain high:

July 2, 2007 – Baghdad — Iraqi civilian deaths dropped to their lowest level since the start of the Baghdad security operation, government figures showed yesterday, suggesting signs of progress in tamping down violence in the capital. But American casualties are running high as U.S. forces step up pressure on Sunni and Shi”ite extremists in and around Baghdad.

At least 1,227 Iraqi civilians were killed in June along with 190 policemen and 31 soldiers, an officer at the Iraqi Interior Ministry”s operations room said. The officer spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the figures.
…
June’s figures were the lowest monthly tally this year. In January, President Bush ordered nearly 30,000 troops to Iraq in a major push to stabilize the capital so that Iraq”s leaders can hammer out power-sharing agreements for a lasting peace.

The Baghdad security operation began in mid-February, although the last of the American reinforcements arrived in Iraq only last month… the figures suggest a downward trend, which may be a result of U.S. military pressure on insurgents in Baghdad and the surrounding areas, as well as a shift in focus by extremists toward American targets.

The commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., told reporters on Friday that American and Iraqi security forces now control 48 percent to 49 percent of the 474 neighborhoods in Baghdad, up from 19 percent in April
.