"We've last Anbar Province"

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/us-marine-chief-in-damage-control/2006/09/14/1157827090875.html

THE most senior US marine commander in Iraq has played down a secret intelligence report asserting that the United States had "lost" Anbar province.
Anbar is the heartland of Sunni resistance to the American occupation and the report, parts of which were leaked to US media at the weekend, painted a dramatic picture of a collapse in US military control.
Without denying the accuracy of the leaks, Major-General Richard Zilmer tried on Tuesday to minimise the damage. But he acknowledged that "progress" in Anbar was much more challenging than elsewhere in Iraq.
The report was written by Colonel Pete Devlin, the Marine Corps' chief of intelligence, and is the most negative verdict by a senior US officer so far.

Is this the war that was just about over?

 

[gtc]

But things seem to be going better in Afghanistan (from the same article)

Good news, bad news for NATO
NATO is struggling to win new troop commitments urgently needed for its Afghanistan campaign, but said Operation Medusa, a 10-day offensive to dislodge Taliban fighters from their southern strongholds, was achieving its goals despite the shortage of troops.

 

[andyandy]

But things seem to be going better in Afghanistan (from the same article)

it's not going too well for the Brits.....

 

[Crossbow]

I heard about this report the other day myself. I was going to post the data in another thread to rebut the arguments being made by 'zigguarat' that the insurgents no longer had a secure base to operate from since the Battle of Fallujah but I got busy and was unable to do so.

Anyway, here is another article about the report in question.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/12/AR2006091201418.html

General Affirms Anbar Analysis

The U.S. commander in western Iraq said he agrees with the findings of a pessimistic classified report recently filed by his top intelligence officer but also insisted that "tremendous progress" is being made in that part of the country.

"I have seen that report and I do concur with that [intelligence] assessment," said Marine Maj. Gen. Richard C. Zilmer, speaking to reporters yesterday by telephone from his headquarters near Fallujah, Iraq. He said he found "frank and candid" the analysis by Col. Pete Devlin, the Marine intelligence chief in Iraq, who concluded that prospects for securing Anbar province are dim.

...

According to several Defense Department officials who have read the report, Devlin also argued that the lack of political progress has created a political vacuum in the province. He wrote that the gap is being filled by the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, said one Army officer who read the assessment. Zilmer did not address that point in his comments to reporters.

...

 

[DJW]

Cherrypicking the negative information without regard to the alternative commentary is deceitful. The important question here is *how do we NOT lose Anbar?* Would more troops really help? There is evidence in the citation that suggested more troops would be beneficial. If that is true then the US citizens on this board might be able flex their civic muscles a bit and maybe force the issue. Else, we could focus on all of the negativity that is inherent in any war, act like losers, and demand that we pull out and wash our hands of the whole mess. IMHO--we really need to decide whether we want to win or lose, and I vote win.

I just remembered that my senators are Kerry and Kennedy--nevermind.

 

[Ladewig]

Cherrypicking the negative information without regard to the alternative commentary is deceitful. The important question here is *how do we NOT lose Anbar?* Would more troops really help? There is evidence in the citation that suggested more troops would be beneficial. If that is true then the US citizens on this board might be able flex their civic muscles a bit and maybe force the issue.

Yes, of course. Who could possible doubt that the best way to determine troop deployments is to let civilians read newspaper reports, have them write congress, and then have congress tell the Pentagon where to send troops?

Else, we could focus on all of the negativity that is inherent in any war, act like losers, and demand that we pull out and wash our hands of the whole mess. IMHO--we really need to decide whether we want to win or lose, and I vote win.

And I vote win, too. The question I have for you is why do you think that retaining all the folks that got us to this point is the best plan for winning?

 

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/us-marine-chief-in-damage-control/2006/09/14/1157827090875.html
Is this the war that was just about over?

I suggest you link a map so people can see where you are talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Anbar

Good article at wiki, at least for general understanding. Take a look at this list of cities, and see how many have been in the news concerning trouble in Iraq. Some of these places have been in the news over and over.

Ramadi — capital of Anbar
Sadah
Haditha
Hit
A'na
Fallujah
Abu Ghraib
Al-Qaim
Al-Nukhaib
Ar Rutba
Kubaisa
Al Asad (major base built up here)

Anbar Province makes up about one third of Iraq. It was through Anbar that most of the infiltrations into Iraq from Syria and Saudi has come. This area was the home of predominantly Sunni family and tribal groups for a very long time. The blatant side taking in favor of the Shia early on alienated a lot of these people. Establishing relationships with the families and tribes there has been an uphill battle for the military units posted there, and has had mixed success. From wiki: Anbar, with Ramadi and Fallujah in particular, is known for its inhabitants' strong tribal and religious traditions. Allegedly, former President Saddam Hussein was constantly wary of the volatile nature of the area. Most of the inhabitants of the province are Sunni Muslims from the Dulaim tribe. This squares with what I learned while in the sandbox.

The Marines have had that province as their charge for three years. This is "I MEF's" second year-long assignment for security and stability of that area. I doubt any Marine harbors illusions about the realtive merits and challenges of the mission in Anbar.

DR

 

[DJW]

Yes, of course. Who could possible doubt that the best way to determine troop deployments is to let civilians read newspaper reports, have them write congress, and then have congress tell the Pentagon where to send troops?

Okay, so that was cynical, but probably deserved. I do, however, think that educated citizens should try to influence their representatives. I think that if we debated whether or not more troops would be good, then we would be presenting an educated decision to our representatives and not an opinion derived from a newspaper report. There are very well informed members of this forum who could help us come to learned conclusion.

And I vote win, too. The question I have for you is why do you think that retaining all the folks that got us to this point is the best plan for winning?

I never suggested that, but I'll take a whack at your strawman.

I don't believe we should retain people who aren't doing the job. I am going to pay close attention to what anyone who wants my vote says about how they propose to win the war. I'll consider what they say, and quite frankly, I will come here and consider what the people here write about the candidates, and then I'll vote for whomever I think will do the job the best.

 

[Mycroft]

Okay, so that was cynical, but probably deserved. I do, however, think that educated citizens should try to influence their representatives. I think that if we debated whether or not more troops would be good, then we would be presenting an educated decision to our representatives and not an opinion derived from a newspaper report. There are very well informed members of this forum who could help us come to learned conclusion.

Well, in the short-run the fundamental thing you want to let them know is that we prefer winning to running.

 

[Ziggurat]

I heard about this report the other day myself. I was going to post the data in another thread to rebut the arguments being made by 'zigguarat' that the insurgents no longer had a secure base to operate from since the Battle of Fallujah but I got busy and was unable to do so.

I'm not sure why you think this contradicts my claims. Perhaps you didn't understand my claim to begin with. But there's a major difference between having a base, and having what I termed a secure base. And perhaps I did not adequately explain that difference. In Fallujah, the insurgents had complete control of the town. They could do anything they wanted within the town, and do it openly, without fear of attack from coalition forces. This is a MAJOR asset. They do not have it anywhere anymore. In every major city and town, they must worry about the possibility of coalition or Iraqi troops attacking or capturing them. Does this mean that they can't operate, or that they don't have major presence in any towns? No, unfortunately it does not mean that. But it does mean that they have to operate much more carefully, and are much more constrained in what they can accomplish, than if they still had a secure base like Fallujah.

 

[a_unique_person]

It appears the insurgents have better than a town, they now have a third of Iraq.

 

[Ladewig]

I never suggested that, but I'll take a whack at your strawman.

Your statement sounded so much like Karl Rove's spin that I assumed you had put your faith in the Republicans. If I was wrong, then I apologize.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It appears the insurgents have better than a town, they now have a third of Iraq.

Your analysis has a poverty of depth. The province is very much being contested. That is the current state of play. What is important to get is that the sober assessment by the military is as follows: the military can keep contesting it, but the more important arena, the political and social arena, has been going nowhere, or backwards, for the last year or two.

Football analogy: the lead in the second quarter of the game has been squandered, thanks to penalties and turnovers, and the score in the third quarter is now tied the other team now has the lead.

Unless the game plan changes in the fourth quarter, likely to lose the political game.

DR

 

[DJW]

Your statement sounded so much like Karl Rove's spin that I assumed you had put your faith in the Republicans. If I was wrong, then I apologize.

I reread my initial post and your subsequent reply. It concerns me that my comments seem “Rovian” to you. I’m going to accept your apology, but must suggest that your knee-jerk assumption is the very thing that politicizes this war, thus making it harder to win. When we demonize each other, or attempt to disparage the character, integrity, intelligence of another’s opinion—not that you did all of that, but to even attempt to marginalize what you perceive to be “the other side”—we prevent useful discourse.

Politicians like it when we marginalize each other. Then, they don’t need to do anything more than look down their noses at the other side and continue doing what they’re doing. What screws them up is when their supporters start agreeing with the other side.

If, as Mycroft suggests, we start from a position of demanding that we “win” (whatever the hell that is) and that we don’t run away, then at the very least Osama Bin Laden doesn’t get to be right that Americans are weak willed and will back down when things get tough. By starting from the position that we are going to demolish the insurgents, jihadists, terrorists, etc…we can focus on the best way to accomplish that task.

Darth Rotor put the Anbar province condition into a football analogy that I really liked, because it sums up how I see the situation too. Should we argue whether to even play the game when it’s already in the fourth quarter? No. Should we change the coach? Sure, but when his contract expires. Should the team make adjustments? Absolutely. Should they focus on the negative? No. What about the fans? Do we sit on our hands and not boo if we feel that something isn’t going well? Hell no, but we should try to make recommendations that focus on winning.

 

[Ladewig]

I reread my initial post and your subsequent reply. It concerns me that my comments seem “Rovian” to you. I’m going to accept your apology, but must suggest that your knee-jerk assumption is the very thing that politicizes this war, thus making it harder to win. When we demonize each other, or attempt to disparage the character, integrity, intelligence of another’s opinion—not that you did all of that, but to even attempt to marginalize what you perceive to be “the other side”—we prevent useful discourse.

Your original post struck me as overly dichotomous

Else, we could focus on all of the negativity that is inherent in any war, act like losers, and demand that we pull out and wash our hands of the whole mess. IMHO--we really need to decide whether we want to win or lose, and I vote win.

I think that there are more than two positions that the American population can take. The president has said on numerous occassions that we cannot cut and run, that we must stay in the fight in order to win. At the risk of demonizing Mr. Bush, not only do I believe that there are more than two positions we can take, but I also believe that there are more than two possible outcomes. There are degrees of winning and degrees of losing.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later. I have to go to work now.

 

[DJW]

Your original post struck me as overly dichotomous

Let’s keep in mind the original post (AUP’s) and my conclusion that the article cited to support “ANBAR Last (sic)” had positives and negatives, but only the negatives were presented. My response presented a dichotomy where one was needed.

I think that there are more than two positions that the American population can take. The president has said on numerous occasions that we cannot cut and run, that we must stay in the fight in order to win.

I agree with you and the president.

At the risk of demonizing Mr. Bush, not only do I believe that there are more than two positions we can take, but I also believe that there are more than two possible outcomes. There are degrees of winning and degrees of losing.

You’re not demonizing him by making that suggestion, but I do believe that there are only two outcomes: winning or losing-- then I agree that they come in degrees. The war hasn’t progressed as I would like, so I’m already coping with that reality. However, and contrary to a lot of opinion, I have seen our administration make adjustments, e.g. military control quickly turned to civilian authority then slowly to an Iraqi assembly etc... My point is that there is no status quo. When the president says, “stay the course”, I think he means “stay ‘till we win”, rather than keep doing what isn’t working. However, that’s entirely arguable and completely his fault.

I would prefer it if we would consider what on earth could be done to win in Anbar. Do we need more troops on the ground? I think so, but I would prefer to hear from our forum members who have the historical, logical, and sometimes experiential know how to help formulate a plan. Until then, I’m reticent to contact my representatives.

And, please don’t get me wrong. I’m not a Pollyanna. I don’t believe that my one voice means anything in the vast wasteland that is D.C. It just is the case that we have men and women fighting and dieing for a cause--my cause, perhaps your cause. If I cannot take a moment of my time to ask some questions, consider some options and propose to my representatives something meaningful, as a citizen of the USA should be wont to do, then those men and women should come home, because then I don’t deserve their sacrifice.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later. I have to go to work now.

Take your time and don’t work too hard…unless you want to.

 

[Crossbow]

I'm not sure why you think this contradicts my claims. Perhaps you didn't understand my claim to begin with. But there's a major difference between having a base, and having what I termed a secure base. And perhaps I did not adequately explain that difference. In Fallujah, the insurgents had complete control of the town. They could do anything they wanted within the town, and do it openly, without fear of attack from coalition forces. This is a MAJOR asset. They do not have it anywhere anymore. In every major city and town, they must worry about the possibility of coalition or Iraqi troops attacking or capturing them. Does this mean that they can't operate, or that they don't have major presence in any towns? No, unfortunately it does not mean that. But it does mean that they have to operate much more carefully, and are much more constrained in what they can accomplish, than if they still had a secure base like Fallujah.

That is because this fact, along with many others, does indeed contradict your claims.

So what if Fallujah is no longer a secure base of operations for the insurgents? Even if that is true, then it does not seem to be making much of difference as property damage, injuries, and deaths due to insurgent attacks just keeps going up, and up, and up.

So what if the insurgents have to operate much more carefully? Even if that is true, then it does not seem to be making much of difference as property damage, injuries, and deaths due to insurgent attacks just keeps going up, and up, and up.

All the sober military analysis I have seen consistently shows that the US military is very good at securing any given area where it actually has a presence, however there are not nearly enough US military forces to have a presence throughout all of Iraq. As a result, once that US military presence enters an area, then the insurgents simply leave that area, regroup elsewhere, and continue to fight and attack, fight and attack, and fight and attack ad nausem.

 

[Darth Rotor]

That is because this fact, along with many others, does indeed contradict your claims.

So what if Fallujah is no longer a secure base of operations for the insurgents? Even if that is true, then it does not seem to be making much of difference as property damage, injuries, and deaths due to insurgent attacks just keeps going up, and up, and up.

So what if the insurgents have to operate much more carefully? Even if that is true, then it does not seem to be making much of difference as property damage, injuries, and deaths due to insurgent attacks just keeps going up, and up, and up.

All the sober military analysis I have seen consistently shows that the US military is very good at securing any given area where it actually has a presence, however there are not nearly enough US military forces to have a presence throughout all of Iraq. As a result, once that US military presence enters an area, then the insurgents simply leave that area, regroup elsewhere, and continue to fight and attack, fight and attack, and fight and attack ad nausem.

The metaphor being used a great deal is "whack a mole." Seems an apt model.

DR

 

[Ziggurat]

So what if Fallujah is no longer a secure base of operations for the insurgents? Even if that is true, then it does not seem to be making much of difference as property damage, injuries, and deaths due to insurgent attacks just keeps going up, and up, and up.

No, it doesn't. It goes up and down periodically, due to a lot of factors (including, for example, the weather). But it most certainly has NOT been a monatonic increase, as you claim. You are ignorant.

 

[Crossbow]

No, it doesn't. It goes up and down periodically, due to a lot of factors (including, for example, the weather). But it most certainly has NOT been a monatonic increase, as you claim. You are ignorant.

Well if I am so ignorant, then perhaps an incredibly smart and well educated person such as yourself would be willing to spend a few days in Iraq seeing the sights while waving the American flag.

From page 2 of "STABILIZING IRAQ: An Assessment of the Security Situation" (GAO-06-1094T).

...

Since June 2003, the overall security conditions in Iraq have deteriorated and grown more complex, as evidenced by increased numbers of attacks and Sunni/Shi’a sectarian strife, which has grown since the February 2006 bombing in Samarra. As shown in the figure below, attacks against the coalition and its Iraqi partners reached an all time high during July 2006. The deteriorating conditions threaten the progress of U.S. and international efforts to assist Iraq in the political and economic areas. ...