I know the story has been floating around for a couple of weeks, but as media attention focuses on the security operations in and around Baghdad, I thought it would be worthwhile to remember theres a lot of activity going on to stabilize the Sunni-majority al Anbar province in western Iraq.
Ive spent a lot of time out there embedded with Marine and Army units over the past few years and its at least somewhat heartening for me to hear from a variety of sources that the Marines strategy of enlisting the local populace in the struggle against al Qaeda and the anti-government Sunni insurgency is starting to pay off.
According to Kim Kagans latest Iraq report, tribal chiefs and clan leaders are enlisting their members in greater numbers to join police and army units, pushing the influence of Sunni AQ out of the province.
In March 2006, al Qaeda controlled Ramadi and Anbar in the doctrinal sense. U.S. forces slowly spread through many of Ramadis neighborhoods through security stations and combat outposts. They cleared al Qaeda from the government center, which was its stronghold in Ramadi. In March 2007, al Qaeda no longer controlled Ramadi, and in fact, U.S. and Iraqi forces controlled many parts of the city in a doctrinal sense.
A critical mass of the civilian population in Ramadi supported counterinsurgency efforts. Ramadis tribal sheiks organized and led a movement, the Awakening, when they decided to expel al Qaeda from their city. They led their population not only to reject al Qaeda, but also actively to oppose the organization. They recruited thousands of Anbaris to join the Iraqi police, effectively increasing force presence in the city and throughout the Euphrates River Valley. Their efforts, combined with U.S. efforts, spread the al Qaeda opposition movement from Ramadi, the capital city, into other cities in the provinces.
And in case you want to just dismiss the report thinking Kim is simply a shill for the neocons on this, just consider her sourcing on the assessment, which includes the New York Times, LA Times and AP.
The Marine strategy was starting to work in late 2005, when operation Steel Curtain was launched in response to AQ harassment of a western tribe that controlled the smuggling routes from Syria. That sentiment gradually made its way down the Euphrates River valley, ending up in the provincial capitol of Ramadi, where Marines and their local tribal allies have wrested back control.
Now I realize that as Gen. Barry McCaffrey remarked to senators yesterday: the American people have walked away from this war and they are not coming back, but still, the Marines who control al Anbar deserve credit for their counterinsurgency strategy.
Counterinsurgency operations in Anbar helped reintegrate the cities of the province. Poor security, including insurgents control of the Euphrates River and the roads, isolated Anbars cities from Ramadi in 2006.
As U.S. and Iraqi Security Forces secured the river, Ramadi, and the other cities of the river valley, smaller towns and villages were able to contribute to police recruiting drives and improve security in outlying areas. Linking the cities within the province is a necessary prerequisite for ensuring that the provincial government can govern and assist the entire province. Prime Minister Malikis visit was a symbolic and practical first step toward establishing a working relationship between the provincial government in Anbar Province and the central government in Baghdad.
Its been a long, painful road (as I know from very personal experience), but even if America leaves Iraq with its tail between its legs, at least the Marines stuck to their plan…and it seems to be the only one thats really paid any dividends.
– Christian
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
That’s a very optimistic appraisal. reading between the lines – and reading the BBCs reports on it – it sounds as though it’s more a matter of control having passed to a different faction.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6465847.stm
Not to nitpick, but Ramadi has been pacified by US Army Brigades working for the Marines. 1/1 AD (moved from Tal Afar) did most of the legwork to support and build the ASC forces beginning in June 2006, and now 1/3 ID is carrying the ball. Of the five combat battalions in Ramadi, one is a USMC BN.
1 MEF and 2 MEF were very supportive and helpful, but give the Army a little credit for “getting it”.
O yes, the BBC, the most left-of-center western news organization of all. We should DEFINITELY listen to them, because they ALWAYS tell the (err) truth. And they will sell you swampland at the north pole, too. The truth is that the BBC is on the side of the terrorists far more than the West. I wouldn’t trust them for one second on 90% of the subjects they speak on. And I listen to them almost every day, so I know whereof I speak. They are singing the terrorist’s tune, happily and willingly, just like the Alphabet soup networks in America and the Democrat party.
The BBC…supports the terrorists?
If that’s true, it means HMG supports the terrorists. Should we then be thinking about invading Britain?
The other other other Max, just because the state funded media is biased and likes to paint terrorists as the good guys, doesn’t mean that the state agrees with them. Here in Canada, the Conservative government has been in power for over a year and yet the CBC (government funded) continues (what they have been doing for many many years) to write articles that try to show the Conservatives as the bad guys and the Liberals as the good guys.
Wait the BBC is > or = to Al Jezzera? Did I miss a memo?
Blaming the “liberal media” how quaint.
Rupert Murdoch has achived the incredible goal of making William Randolph Hearst look like a paragon a journolistic integrity.
Arthur, you’re right, funding someone (or a group of someons) doesn’t mean you agree with them. It does, however, mean you are materially supporting them. Which makes you culpable for their actions.
I didn’t mean to say that Tony Blair or his government supports the terrorists. What I’m saying is that the BBC has an obvious agenda, which is the same agenda as the liberal media in America: they see the Islamic terrorists as the enemy of their enemy, which is Bush and Blair, and therefore the Islamic terrorists are their “friends”. It’s a “you scratch my back; I’ll scratch your back” relationship. They don’t have to even talk to each other. The terrorists know that all they have to do is produce bloody videos of people being blown to bits, and the BBC and Leftist media in America dutifully magnifies it along with comments that insinuate to the public “See how much it’s costing you to support the policies of Bush and Blair? Do you see your sons and daughters being blown to bits?”
The terrorists know they cannot win on the battlefield. All they have to do is win on the public opinion-field, and they have powerful allies in the media who are helping them do it every single day.
In my opinion, the Liberal media probably believes that by helping the terrorists succeed in their goals (overthrowing the Iraqi government and destroying Israel), they will damage the legacies of Bush and Blair, and thereby enhance the prospects for success of the left-wingers in both the US and Britain (like Hillary and Obama) to push their agendas, which is to turn both countries into willing cat’s paws for the United Nations.
Being a government-funded mouthpiece certainly does not guarantee that it will toe the “government line”, unless you are in a country like Russia or China.
The one thing that made me see we were losing this war is the construction of a Mosque at Quantico USMC.
To me that said it all.
Mosque in Quantico? Maybe they constructed it to practice live fire MOUT operations with live participants? OOH RAH!
Quote:
Not to nitpick, but Ramadi has been pacified by US Army Brigades working for the Marines. 1/1 AD (moved from Tal Afar) did most of the legwork to support and build the ASC forces beginning in June 2006, and now 1/3 ID is carrying the ball. Of the five combat battalions in Ramadi, one is a USMC BN.
1 MEF and 2 MEF were very supportive and helpful, but give the Army a little credit for “getting it”.
Posted by: Niel at April 18, 2007 02:07 PM
__________________________________________________
Yeah, but that ONE battalion of Marines is doing the majority of ass-kicking, bad-guy stomping in that province. I’ve witnessed both Marines and soldiers at work in urban combat ops, and NOBODY comes close to the aggressive warfighting capability and quick maneuvering flexibility that a USMC grunt battalion brings to the fight. THAT’s why the Marines are getting the credit to bringing the insurgents to their collective knees today.
Incidentally, it was the ARMY that begged, borrowed, and demanded that the USMC deploy back into theater AFTER they lost control of the situation and AFTER the USMC kicked in the door and left the occupational mission (which the Army owns) to the common soldier. I just don’t buy it, Neil. Let’s give the rightful credit to where the credit is justly due, my freind.