Since today marks the end of the fourth year since Operation Iraqi Freedom kicked off, I thought it would be a good idea to take a look at the current state of battle.
Two thorough assessments of the current struggle come from DT friend and military historian Kim Kagan in her latest update on Gen. Petraeus counterinsurgency strategy, and from MilBlogger Bill Roggios Fourth-Rail site in his daily update (from March 19).
From Kagan:
Muqtada al-Sadr’s decision not to fight at the beginning of the Baghdad Security Plan, and his flight from Iraq to Iran, minimized Jaysh al-Mahdi resistance in January, February, and early March. U.S. and Iraqi forces have not, however, eliminated enemy forces and organized resistance, even in those areas. Rogue elements of the Jaysh al-Mahdi continue to operate in Baghdad
A big advantage of a “rolling surge” is that the population and the enemy sense the continuous pressure of ever-increasing forces. Iraqis have not seen such a prolonged and continuous planned increase of U.S. forces before–previous increases have been smaller and/or focused on specific events such as elections, after which it was expected that the additional troops would be withdrawn. A disadvantage of a “rolling surge” is that the enemy continues to function in some areas of Baghdad or simply leaves the city to await the expected departure of the additional troops. The net result of the continued, increasing presence of U.S. forces appears to be having an important psychological, as well as practical, effect on the enemy and the people of Iraq
While, or perhaps because, the Jaysh al-Mahdi has avoided fighting with U.S. and Iraqi troops, and as executions have fallen, al Qaeda has increased the number and variety of spectacular attacks in Baghdad. The aim of such attacks seems consistent: namely, to spark sectarian violence. It seems likely that al Qaeda leaders wish to incite the Shiite population of Baghdad to take up arms and continue fighting, in order to discredit the government of Iraq and the United States. So far, the Shiite population has not reacted to these attacks as dramatically as it did on previous occasions. It is likely that another goal of these al Qaeda attacks is to break the will of the American people to continue the fight, possibly even to turn off the “surge” before it takes full effect
From Roggio:
Sectarian murders, the fuel for the potential Sunni — Shia civil war, have been dramatically reduced. Before the beginning of the operation, Scores of bodies were found executed daily, now the number is in the single digits. Massive car bomb attacks, which in the past have killed dozens and wounded hundreds, have been reduced. While the number of car bombings have increased, their effectiveness has decreased. Over the past week only one significant suicide car bomb attack occurred inside Baghdad
The U.S. has been in serious negotiations with elements of Sadr’s Mahdi Army, which has been behind much of sectarian murders in Baghdad and beyond. With Sadr and his senior lieutenants either in Iran or Syria, or going to ground outside of Baghdad, Sadr has lost significant command and control of his militia. The negotiations seriously threaten Sadr’s power base in Baghdad and the south
And Marines in charge of security in the western al Anbar province are beginning to see some progress in their effort to drive a wedge between al Qaeda terrorist groups and local tribal officials.
Despite positive signs, however, the American public has clearly grown tired of the Iraq war, with more than 60 percent of Americans telling pollsters they disapprove of Bushs handling of the conflict there. Four years and more than 3,000 deaths — and tens of thousands more wounded — is too high a price to pay for most Americans. And there are signs the Iraqi people are losing confidence as well.
Though President Bush is yet again pleading for patience which anyone who knows anything about counterinsurgency strategy understands is the key to success the moves by a Democrat-led Congress to end the war before the 2008 election shows time is running out.
The war will be won or lost within the next year. The troop surge was the answer from the beginning, but wars are filled with mistakes like this.
The question will be, can the republicans keep enough support for the war until things calm down over there? If casualty rates in Iraq start to decline steadily, and if reports of violence become more and more scarce, Bush can pull out a “the war is almost won” speech. If the republicans can’t hold things together, and the dems start to sound the retreat, then it’s over.
>A disadvantage of a “rolling surge” is that the enemy continues to function in some areas of
>Baghdad or simply leaves the city to await the expected departure of the additional troops.
It’s not important rather they escape or not. What is important is the last stage to prevent the enemy that escaped from returning, and building barriers with checkpoints around the city. If the final stage sealing the city goes well, then the MNF will only need to get rid of the remaining that pops out. Afterwrd, MNF would go hunt after those which escaped to other cities. Baghdad is only the beginning, not the end. Who cares if the Mahdi Army escaped to Basra? When Baghdad is done, the MNF will just need to roll on to other cities until the last strong point is conquered. It is just like slipping the soap in the bathroom to the corner where the soap has no other place to slip. So, the fact that the enemy escaped or not is not the main concern for the operation of Baghdad. The rest of the search and cordon operation to be done in other cities will make the job easier, because there is no other city with more population than Baghdad, which means it will take less time to search for the enemy in other smaller cities. If they want to escape to other cities, let them do it, because it will make the job easier in Baghdad, and the job easier for any following smaller cities after Baghdad is done.
Brian,
Well, I’ll give you the Civil War and Vietnam… but can’t agree to WW1 or the War of 1812 — because we WON both of those, for God’s sake!
I can’t even tell you (and neither can THEY!) what exactly winning in Iraq IS.. I suspect now that anything short of total chaos may now be defined as some kind of “Victory”… with all the propaganda floating around these days.
Also disagree about the war being won or lost in a year… It took what — almost 3 years for Saigon to fall after we left in 72? So until we leave and see how it all plays out — there is no way to judge Iraq’s final outcome.
And dude, one thing I’ve NEVER been accused of is not reading enough history.
Timeline:
First year, 1991.…. “Gulf War“
Years 1992–2003.…“no fly zone” enforcement, limited air strikes, limited U.S. fatalities
Years 2003–2007.….“Iraq War“
Total thus far.….SEVENTEEN
Future?.….besides the surface, obvious reasons for violence (revenge,sheer delight in killing, power plays between factions), there remains the underlying religious base fact: to Islam, the very ground is HOLY, and Westerners presence is blasphemous.….and cause for “jihad”.
Religious wars continue, long after political aims are met. Consider bombings in Ireland, as example. Decades.
Our presence in Iraq is fated to be for decades. It will depend upon world economys’ reliance upon midEast oil, and our willingness to take hits. Those will continue indefinately, although lessen perhaps.
Meanwhile.….while the war drums have died down a bit concerning Iran.…it is still there, still a growing risk, Isreal is quietly waiting, and the carriers are there.…..
Note to Defense Tech: tech is only meaningful in context of its proposed use by political sides. Your continued posts towards EACH facet is worthy. Thank you.
I do believe that map posted does show troop movements and locations, as well as other operational details.
Unless that map is old, it should be posted on open internets.
Um, Christian, you do know Kim Kagan’s name doesn’t just *happen* to be Kagan, right?
I mean, you could have accused Noah and David of a slight anti-administration bias, but unfortunately reality has a slight anti-administration bias these days. I think you may be trying a little too hard to swing the pendulum back.
Mike,
Not trying to “swing” any pendulum. If you can find a better sitrep on the net, zap me a note and I’ll consider using it.
Christian
>Well, I’ll give you the Civil War and Vietnam… but can’t agree to WW1 or the War of 1812 — because we WON both of those, for God’s sake!
>I can’t even tell you (and neither can THEY!) what exactly winning in Iraq IS..
But you can tell us what what winning in the War of 1812 WAS?
The US declared war mostly due to British impressment and commerce raiding and both became moot when Napoleon was defeated in 1814.
The peace treaty was return to status quo and the British managed to burn down the White House, doesn’t sound like a shining victory to me, more like a stalemate.
»> I suspect now that anything short of total chaos may now be defined as some kind of “Victory”…
No matter what the outcome, the press will declare it a complete and humiliating loss, an utter disaster, etc … all because George Bush has an R after his name instead of a D. No good is allowed to be found on planet Earth when there’s a Republican in the White House.
What the final disposition of Iraq will be is anybody’s guess but that’s really beside the point for the MSM. They started writing the “Bush Lost the War” story before it even began.
As I read the accounts of what the US military is doing in Iraq , I am proud of the way they are conducting themselves, with dedication and decency. I not sure if Iraq will work out ‚but if it does, it will be because of the sacrifices and efforts of our soldiers.
4yrs in review… The unjustified attack of a sovereign nation. An illegal war with changing rational. A complicit media. Premature declaration of victory. Loss of moral high ground. Loss of all credibility and international standing. Bankruptcy of two nations. Erosion of our own rights and freedoms. Uncounted innocents. Ill-equipped soldiers. Un-accountable private armies. Record profits for oil companies and arms dealers. An imperial president. ZERO accountability. Too many questions, too many sheeple. Hey, this war went so well, let
As I understand it, The United States has some really powerful weapons. If we would ignore the dirty politics and employ some of these weapons, then I think this war could end much faster.
I supoort the troops and their mission. I support the President. Generally, in this information age we have too much “incomplete” information about the big picture. We don’t know all the intel on our enemies. Trust is tough to give when you think you have all the information and in reality you don’t. I trust our President and our very capable military leadership to bring the fight to our enemies. Are you prepared for IED’s on our highways? If we fail as a nation, to keep the fighting in their backyards, this could be our future. Watching the liberal Congress viscerate our military and attack our President makes me buy more guns and ammo. Are you prepared for the worst case senario? Ironically, most libs hate guns as well. Our enemies will have an easy time with half our population. Stay safe and learn to trust. God Bless us all…
Unfortunately there remain those who continue to fall prey to the continuous barrage of propaganda of those blinded with hate for Bush. When they have little to none of the facts of the present day situation. Canada has received threat from Al Quida to stop the flow of oil from there to the states. I don’t know how much closer to home the attacks have to come before these people wake up to the realities of the times.
The terrorists are intent in their drive to destroy this country and what it stands for. To change how we live and survive. That pipe line has already been damaged once and would be a simple matter to repeat the damage. The last hole in the pipe was only 6 feet in diameter.. wonder what the next one will be?
The bottom line is this, This President will not be able to do anything that will make the situation in Iraq better, simply because he set this whole thing in motion. Had he listened to his Generals at the time, I do believe things would not be this bad. Now the only thing he can do is blame everybody else for the mistakes made by him and his adminstration. The American people are tired of all the lies, that was evident with the last election. I perdict it be a while before a republican is elected president.
how many of you that voted for the last go around vote for your reps in the house and sente said “We the voters wont you the elected to end the war in iraq” that is all that I hear from the people in the house and sente are saying.
If your are like me send a letter off to your reps and tell them that is not what you voted for
“Radar” and “Indyfan” sound more like my kind of people. Armchair quarterbacks out — professionals in. Send our people some Thanks and more CARE packages.
Radar is absolutely right on the facts. The reasons something had to be done about Saddam:
The sanctions against Iraq were about to be dropped at the UN. The support for them had been lost. The rest of the world saw Saddam as a nuisance, and not a threat, plus they were making billions (France and Russian gov’ts, even some US companies) on illegal use of the oil for food program.
Once the sanctions were dropped, Saddam had every intention of restarting his WMD program. This was demonstrated by the discovery of nuclear centrifuge and other equipment buried in his chief nuclear scientist’s yard. He had already defied the UN Security Council by building missiles capable of reaching Israel and beyond the 500 mile limit imposed by the sanctions. And he did this while he was supposed to be honoring the cease fire he signed in 1992. He has been breaking international law since day one of the cease fire. It had become so commonplace, people just looked away and sighed (hence the nuisance statement above.) How long do you give someone to comply? I think 12 yrs was plenty.
So:
1)The UN was not going to reapprove the sanctions against Iraq.
2) Saddam was manipulating inspections (which we still do not know why he moved equipment around during inspections, giving the appearance he was hiding stuff from the inspectors. I think he was just playing a bluff and it eventually backfired.)
3) He was firing at coalition acft enforcing the no fly zones (He offered $10 million to anyone who shot down a UN recon plane)
4) Oil for Food was not working, and neither was diplomacy.
These are a few of the reasons something had to be done.
Personally, I think we should have waited awhile and concentrated on Afghanistan a little longer. But I am not the President, Congress, or Seante. But we are in Iraq now, we are doing something that can result in a Middle East that is prosperous AND friendly to the West, and we can make the lives of millions better if we just let the Commanders on the ground decide timelines and benchmarks, not those in the Congress and senate, most of whom have little or no military experience.
I know some will argue that Iraqi deaths have increased since US involvement. I’m not talking about the here and now. I am talking about generations of Iraqis who will be able to live together and prosper, should success in Iraq be achieved.
Sorry for the long diatribe. If anything, let’s give this counterinsurgency strategy a chance to work. Prior to US invasion of Iraq Al Queda said that if the US attacks Iraq, they will do everything in their power to incite a civil war (split the country in two was their words). Do we want to give an enemy who has shown their willingness AND ability to attack our homeland and inflict mass casualties that leverage?
If you agree, write your Congressman and tell them that you voted for a new direction, and that direction needs to be given a chance, not arbitrary withdrawal.
Way to provide evidence to support your statements in your ad hominem attack ‘Tom’. I don’t agree with the war, but at least the supporters of it take the time to do their research and provide a compelling argument.
For all of you doubters, had the US not taken down Saddam after 9/11, most can agree he and his sons weren’t going anywhere for at least a decade..he was tan, fit and his mafia family had an iron grip on the country and was reaping tens of billions, even under sanctions.(fast forward and think oil at $50+, not $25)
In that ten year period, he could have easily built a capability to enrich that 1.3 tons of HEU he had stored at the Al Tawaitha facility to bomb grade fuel, not to mention the few hundred tons of yellowcake also stored there. It is also possible Saddam may have eventually moved sooner rather than later to counter Iran’s growing nuclear/BM threat.
And yes, he’d been host to Abu Nidal, AMZ and other sordid characters known to kill Americans through the years..reason enough to take him down, if you take Bush at his word, post 9/11 state of the union address (i.e., Saddam in the ‘against us’ column)
There is no question Saddam was a future threat to the region and US interests there, and the President made the call, right or wrong.
I believe the early success the US had in Afghanistan led the President to believe the sum of this war would be similar.The ‘occupation’ and ‘transition’ phases were obviously poorly planned and executed..something the media actually got right.