The 'al-Anbar Awakening'...sounds fancy doesn't it?

Since the testimony of the Petraeus/White House Report on the Surge beginning Sept. 10th two things have proven true about Iraq:

1) At the very least [and I'm leaning towards cherry picking positive data and ignoring negative stats]....the data is often contradictory about civilian and sectarian deaths in Iraq. That's at the very least. Of course that is me being 5 times more generous than I should be because data from all independent sources, from sources with no vested interest in painting a rosy story, tell us that sectarian and civilian deaths nationwide are trending at nearly the same levels, or sometime a little higher.

2) In the al-Anbar Province region [in yellow] of Iraq there has seen a noticeable reduction in violence. The reason for this lies in the fact that some Sunni sheiks and tribal leaders, and formerly insurgent groups attacking American soldiers have decided to instead work with us against their former allies the Sunni group al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

Surge Progress?
This fact has been touted by war supporters and by some generally ignorant commentators as a clear case of progress for the Surge.

They look at Anbar Province and they see a way of scrapping some success (somehow) from the jaws of defeat.

But the question is: Is this policy good for Iraq? Is this progress?

Dousing The Raging Fires Of Civil War...With Gasoline?
This policy involves the US collaborating with groups who formerly were heavily involved in attacks on US troops not that long ago.

Why the change you might ask? Why are Sunni insurgent groups formerly at odd with us, suddenly eager to work with us against al-Qaeda in Iraq?

Simple: While nobody in Iraq [neither Kurd, Shia, nor even Sunni] liked the Sunni foreign fighters, among the Sunni insurgency a marriage of convenience was made with them in order to deal with what was perceived as the greater evil and threat; The United States.

Many insurgent groups have changed their mind and are making another marriage of convenience [this time with the Americans] in order to eliminate al-Qaeda who they now see as a bigger pest.

Good news for the US and for Iraq right?

Wrong...so horribly wrong.

3 Reasons This Is Wrong And/Or Dangerous

1) We are arming groups (or at the very least giving them money that they use to buy arms) that promise to turn those guns on us once they finish with al-Qaeda in Iraq.

You see, the problem with enemy-of-my-enemy marriages of conveniences is that they are good until, well...it's no longer convenient. The Sunni insurgency already has the American's number. They are well seasoned in how to attack American's. But now they want to get rid of AQI and know the US will provide them the arms and funding to do so.

But these groups have promised [in public no less] to resume attacks on US soldiers once they have finished dealing a sufficient blow on AQI.

One Sunni insurgent leader - Abu Ali - said this US assistance:

Publicly, Abu Ali is grateful for the assistance he and his followers have received from the U.S. military. He predicts he can help clear the entire province of al Qaeda militants within six months if the U.S. Army provides more ammunition and supports insurgent operations with air cover and help from tanks and armored personnel carriers.

But while the marriage of convenience may be successful for now, Abu Ali and his followers seem to have no intention of making a lasting commitment to the Americans.

"After we are done with al Qaeda," Abu Ali says, "we will ask the Americans to withdraw from Iraq. ... If they do not withdraw, there will be violations and the American army will be harmed."

Meaning once they are done with AQI, they will have no need for our cooperation. In other words: We are arming and funding the very groups who will use those very weapons we provided to attack US soldiers in the future. We are being used...

But that's not the worst part of this policy

2) If feeds the specter of full-scale civil war by arming and funding different and competing sides in a civil and ethnic conflict.

The Sunnis in Anbar, or anywhere in Iraq, do not trust or want the Shia-dominated [and US supported] government in Baghdad. They want nothing to do with it.

By funding and arming the Sunni insurgent groups in al-Anbar Province they are effectively funding and arming a rival to the government in Baghdad. The US has propped up and helped the Government in Baghdad, and now is undercutting it by funding and empowering a rival in Anbar province. In essence fueling multiple sides in any civil war. That is counter productive towards the goal of Iraqi unity, and makes it less likely that the central government can exercise any control over all of Iraq outside Shia regions, and even that might not be true (I'll explain in the Roundup). The US is ensuring that Iraq will break into a Sunni region, a Kurdish region in the north, and Shia region in the center and south...and these groups will fight it out in full-scale bloodbath once the US leaves. We should NOT make the bloodbath any worse than its going to be.

The Shias and Kurds are not happy needless to say.


We are pouring gasoline on a fire that was already blazing.

And one of the most frustrating part about this policy is #3

3) It is a totally unneccesary policy if the stated goal is to eliminate AQI and prevent it from taking over Iraq.

First, it is sheer fantasy to believe AQI could ever take over Iraq. It numbers from 1500- 3500 members, which is very small considering that the Sunni insurgency overall is estimated to consist of 25,000 members. They are particularly lethal minority but they simply don't have the numbers to take over even 1 province in Iraq.

Second, the Kurds in the north, and the much more numerous Shia would never allow the Sunni AQI to have a real stronghold in Iraq.

But that's not really the frustrating thing

The most frustrating part is that the only factor that keeps some insurgent groups in league with AQI (and even then many have turned against them) is the US presence in Iraq. Not only does our presence motivate AQI to be in Iraq, it is the reason many Sunni insurgents have (and some continue to) work with AQI.

If we were to leave, there would be no incentive for anyone in Iraq to shelter AQI...they'd most likely be eliminated quite quickly. And in the unlikely case that the Sunnis made another marriage of convenience with AQI to fight the Shias in the full-scale civil war that would follow our exit...well, lets be real. There is NO doubt about who will be the winner...the Shias who are numerically superior.

------------

No Happy Ending Here

Sad isn't it? The US is preventing a full-scale civil war with its presence in one respect, pouring gasoline on it in another respect, but all it can do is delay the eventuality of that war.

If it leaves it will be a bloodbath, if it stays its a smaller bloodbath. But it cannot seem to change that eventuality...But in the meantime, every day it stays in Iraq delaying that war, we lose precious lives, untold billions of money, push our military that much closer to collapse, make us vulnerable to other emerging threats, and hinders our ability to deal with other threats and crisis around the world.

There are no good solutions or policies for the US or Iraq that will ensure anything but some level of violence. But we must leave because that is what is best for the US.

But...it's not fair.

We invaded their country, we destroyed their infrastructure, we messed up the occupation, we allowed the country to go to hell, and now we are going to leave them to a bloody civil war.

It's not fair. Its not fair...

But this is necessary for the United States and ultimately that is who I will think of first. It is not the fault of those who want us to withdraw (many who never wanted us to enter Iraq in the first place), ultimately it is the fault of those who took us to war, and then compounded that initial mistake with a bungled occupation.

Yet I still feel guilty. I suppose, as Americans, we all share blame for the blood shed in Iraq up until now, and for the blood that will be shed when we leave.

You don't understand...I want the US, I want Bush (no matter how much I hate the guy) to pull off a victory, to pull off some miracle that brings the Iraqi's together or at least prevents a bloodbath.

I don't write about my doubts with the Iraq strategy out of some wish to see him fail, I write it because its what I see, and I wont BS you guys out of wishful thinking for a better outcome for Iraqis.

We had an Administration who was and continues to be delusional in all things Iraq and were the masters of wishful thinking, and wishful planning...there is no need for me to add to that delusion if it is not warranted.

-----Roundup------

Expulsion of American Security firms could jeopardize withdrawal plans - Its talking about the withdrawal of the 30,000 Surge troops that Bush recently said could come home by next summer. Why is it in doubt? Because the US relies heavily on "private contractors" in Iraq, otherwise know by its more well know name: mercenaries. Paid-soldier, guns-for-hire etc...

In fact, mercenaries outnumber US troops in Iraq...bet you didn't know that!! (We have 160,000 US troops there right now just as a FYI)

And these mercs are unaccountable to the Iraqi govt or the US government. These aggressive mercs frequently kill civilians and inflame the population, thus making the job that much harder for US soldiers. Everyone, even US soldiers, hate their guts but given the combat troop shortage, its been the US only recourse to keep the occupation going. Iraqi's especially hate their guts.

But now that prominent mercenary company Blackwater might get booted out, it might make it difficult for the US to withdraw those surge troops. With 15 months tours already, I'm not sure how the hell the US can maintain such deployments...An already strained and exhausted military is going to take another hit.

'Help Wanted' Ad Belies Report on Iraq Security - Claims of increased progress and security are looked at in the face of the fact that the US military is seeing the need to hire ever more mercenaries to fulfill certain roles as US troops go off on combat patrols. This excerpt stuck out:

"With the increased insurgent activity, unit supply personnel must continue to pull force protection along with convoy escort and patrol duties," according to a statement of work that accompanied the Sept. 7 request for bidders from Multi-National Force-Iraq.

Increased insurgent activity!? But I thought things were going better? Apprently insurgents are stepping it up, requiring more US troops on the patrol, while mercs take care of the base.

--------

Speaking of al-Anbar Province, apparently the Administration is so happy with the "progress" so far in Sunni areas [read the first half of this post], that they wish to 'expand Anbar model to Iraq Shiites

Fueling different sides of a civil war, and undercutting the central government by fostering and promoting independent Shia forces independent of the Shia-controlled central government.

What's more there is danger to this strategy because of how divided the Shia parts of Iraq are becoming:

On Septmeber 15, powerful Shia militant leader Muqtada al-Sadr withdrew his support for the Iraq government and dealing a blow to the political process and the viability of the central government.

And, security has taken a 'turn for the worst' in the Southern Shia areas -

Security is deteriorating in southern Iraq as rival Shiite militias vying for power have stepped up their attacks after moving out of Baghdad to avoid U.S.-led military operations, according to the latest quarterly Pentagon report on Iraq released yesterday.

"The security environment in southern Iraq took a notable turn for the worse in August" with the assassination of two governors, said the report, which covers June through August. "There may be retaliation and an increase in intra-Shi'a violence throughout the South," it said, whereas previously the violence was centered in the main southern city of Basra.

Even Shias are beginning to fight amonst themselves. Which leaves us to this question: Which Shias are we going to support in our expansion of the Anbar model?

You see how complicated this is getting? Because certain groups like Al-Sadr's are very nationalistic and very anti-American. Could we expect increasing intra-sectarian violence? Tread carefully...

The growing violence in the south is one factor making it unlikely that Iraq's leaders -- hampered by a "zero sum" mentality -- will make headway in the fall on key political resolutions, the report concluded. "In the short term, Iraqi political leaders will likely be less concerned about reconciliation than with consolidating power and posturing for a future power struggle," it said.

This Pentagon report, different from the Petraeus report of Sept. 10, is a lot more pessimistic about the security situation and the political progress that the surge was supposed enable. [I will add that a its sectarian violence figures is based on the same methodology as the Petraeus report so I'm still skeptical about its violence figures]

And note the last sentence about how Iraqi political leaders are less concerned with reconciliation than with consolidating power for a future power struggle. Progress will only come from the political process, not the military. Political progress will help the security situation, not the other way around.

It's clear that Iraqi political leaders are not interested (or at least not expecting) in political progress because they know what's coming: The future power struggle. The Iraqi politicians are preparing for what the Administration still fails to acknowledge as inevitable: The civil war.

If they are planning for civil war, if they are not interested in reconciliation then what is left? If there is no reconciliation there is only conflict.

Like I said earlier, I don't BS you. If I say that I think civil war is inevitable, it's because I see some indications for it (like this one) that tell me that the opposing parties are not interested in having a political reconciliation...and that leaves only one choice...

So long folks, I'll be back from Chicago on Sunday. A vacation from news might do me some good.