August 14, 2007
Balance of Terror
By Michael J. Totten
BAGHDAD – The American soldier sitting next to me flipped open his Zippo lighter and gloomily lit a cigarette. “Do you know why this base isn’t attacked by insurgents?” he said.
I assumed it was because his area of operations, in the Graya’at neighborhood of northern Baghdad out of Coalition Outpost War Eagle, had been cleared of insurgents. Many American military bases and outposts in Iraq are attacked by Al Qaeda terrorists and Mahdi Army militiamen with mortars and rockets. War Eagle was quiet and had not been bombarded for months.
“We aren’t being attacked because the Mahdi Army is in the next building,” he said. “They don’t want to hit their own people.”
American soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division shared the small outpost with Iraqi Army soldiers who lived, worked, and slept in the building next door.
“You mean the Iraqi Army unit here has been infiltrated?” I said.
He nodded grimly and took a pull from his cigarette.
"That's a bad reason for us not to be mortared," I said.
"Yeah," he said and laughed. It was obvious, though, that he did not think it was funny.
“How do you know this?” I said.
“Heard it from intel,” he said. “Getting information out of them is like pulling teeth, but sometimes they say stuff.”
I went inside the Tactical Operations Center and spoke to the Public Affairs Officer. “What can I help you with, Mike?” he said.
“I want an on-the-record interview with Military Intelligence,” I said.
“Why?” he said.
I told him what I had heard. “I can print rumor or fact,” I said.
He got me the interview.
Master Sergeant Jeffrey K. Tyler met with me privately.
“It’s true,” he said. “Many of the Iraqi Army soldiers here are supporters of JAM.” JAM is military shorthand for Jaysh al Mahdi, or Moqtada al Sadr’s radical Shia Mahdi Army militia. “They aren’t in JAM cells necessarily, but they are sympathizers. They may let JAM guys through checkpoints, for example. They aren’t out kidnapping Sunnis or anything like that. They are sympathizers, not direct actors. Almost all the Iraqi Army soldiers here are Shias.”
“Is their presence here the reason we aren’t getting mortared?” I said. “Because the Mahdi Army doesn’t want to blow up their own people?”
“We think that’s probably so,” he said and nodded with confidence.
I didn’t hear that in the briefing when I first got there.
The outpost isn’t the only safe place in that part of Baghdad. The entire area of operations is quiet. The American soldiers based there haven’t suffered a single casualty since they arrived in country at the beginning of the surge in early 2007. The Graya’at neighborhood has been cleared of active insurgents. It’s safer than the Green Zone, in fact, which is still attacked with incoming rockets and mortars.
“If someone sets up a mortar,” said Lieutenant Colonel Wilson A. Shoffner, “we get phone calls from the locals before it is fired. We reached a tipping point here where we have more friends than the insurgents.”
Major Michael Jazdyk concurred. “We were a target at first,” he said. “Insurgents shot at us with rockets and mortars. But most of the time they killed local civilians. The locals want us here now because we pushed the insurgents out and are keeping them out.”
“How do the local civilians help?” I asked.
“We go on foot patrols and joint patrols with the Iraqi Army,” he said. “We give people tip cards with a phone number on it that they can call and give us intel. An Arabic speaker answers the phone.”
The peace, though, isn’t stable. Many areas of Baghdad have been cleared – even the notoriously violent Haifa Street neighborhood – but insurgents and terrorists need only drive a few minutes to get from one of their strongholds to another part of the city. Gunmen and car bombers from other sectors of Baghdad can and do pass through War Eagle’s area.
Until recently the biggest threat was from the adjacent neighborhood just on the other side of the Tigris. It hasn’t been cleared of insurgents. When the War Eagle outpost was still struck by mortars, they were fired from there over the water. It is the insurgents in that sector who apparently have decided to stop attacking the outpost so they won’t hurt their comrades who infiltrated the base.
Those infiltrators in the Iraqi Army are trained every day by the Americans.
“They act like our friends,” said Master Sergeant Tyler. “It is a façade to an extent, yes. They get benefits from having a good relationship with us and will do and say anything to keep us on their side.”
I heard rumors that the Iraqi Army colonel in charge of his side of War Eagle is himself a supporter of Moqtada al Sadr. I could not, however, confirm that with Military Intelligence. Maybe it’s true and maybe it isn’t. American soldiers there believe it is.
Nothing makes me more pessimistic about Iraq’s future prospects than this. The Mahdi Army is Iran’s major proxy in Iraq. It is, in effect, the Iraqi branch of Hezbollah.
The Iranians know what they’re doing. Lebanon was their proving ground. The Revolutionary Guards built Hezbollah from scratch along the border with Israel and in the suburbs south of Beirut during the chaos of civil war and Israeli occupation. In Iraq they’re simply repeating the formula, only this time more violently.
Most of Lebanon’s Shias were moderately pro-Israel before Iran barged onto the scene. 25 years later, and more than 15 years after Lebanon’s civil war ended, Hezbollah is still a menace to Israel and the elected government in Beirut. Hezbollah still has its own foreign policy. Hezbollah can unilaterally ignite hot wars with foreign countries whether Lebanese as a whole want war or not. The level of “stability” in Lebanon may be the best Iraqis can hope for in this generation if the Mahdi Army and its supporters are not somehow purged from the government, the military, and the police.
If some of the Iraqi Army soldiers at War Eagle only pretend to be friends with Americans, what about the civilians in the area? Are they faking it, too?
Who knows?
I went on mounted and dismounted foot patrols with American soldiers every day in that part of Baghdad. Except for one slightly creepy experience where shadowy figures stalked us in the dark, all the local Iraqis I met and interacted with were exceptionally friendly.
On a typical patrol at dawn the soldiers I embedded with did only two things: they kept up a visible presence in the area and tossed boxes of Girl Scout cookies to children.
As the morning progressed and more people woke up, entire families came out of their houses to greet us and wave. Private Goings, the gunner in the Humvee I rode in, threw one box of cookies after another. Kids and their parents received them ecstatically. We did this all morning, for four hours. Aside from a 20 minute dismounted patrol near a palm grove, all we did was drive around and throw cookies.
“This is definitely not a war,” said Sergeant Daniel E. Lizanne. He was referring, of course, to his specific area, not to more violent places like Baqubah and Sadr City. “It’s a peacekeeping mission. We’re really just like police officers here. Right now all we’re doing is waiting for somebody stupid to shoot at us.”
It really didn’t look or feel like a war. No one in the area gets shot or blown up. For hours I watched American soldiers act as though they were employed by Santa Claus rather than the United States Army.
I felt like I could rent a house, move in, and be perfectly safe. Several journalists I know have stayed for long periods in various parts of the Red Zone in Baghdad and they haven’t been shot or kidnapped yet. It really is possible, if you’re careful.
Still, I did not trust that feeling. I would be crazy to trust that feeling too much in Baghdad where a false sense of security must be fought against constantly. If I end up trusting the locals as a whole, at least before the war’s over, it will be time for me to get a new job.
“A lot of the people around here are Sadr supporters,” said Sergeant Lizanne. “But they’re also pro-coalition. I don’t really understand how that works.”
Don’t ask me to explain it. Moqtada al Sadr is an enemy of the United States. His militiamen kill or at least try to kill Americans every day elsewhere in Baghdad. How anyone in Iraq could support both him and the Americans is beyond me.
Iraq is a bewildering country. I can tell you what I see and what I hear, but I can’t unravel and explain with confidence the contradictions in the hearts and minds of its people. The Kurds are fairly straightforward and easy to read. The recently turned pro-American Arabs of Anbar Province likewise aren’t too complicated these days. Baghdad, though, is all but impenetrable. I don’t suggest you trust any Westerner who hasn’t spent years there who says he or she understands the alleyways and secrets of that city.
In my mind I keep returning to what an Iraqi interpreter named Hammer said to me a few days before. “You can’t understand Iraq because you can’t get inside their mind. When you get inside their mind…it is a crazy mind.”
“Do you think the civilians here are genuinely friendly or just faking it?” I asked Sergeant Lizanne. Private Goings tossed more boxes of cookies.
“Hmm,” he said. “Well, I wouldn’t want to be out here by myself at night, I’ll tell you that much. The children really do love us, though. At least we’re making friends with the next generation.”
The children aren’t the only ones uninterested in fighting Americans.
“The sheiks in our area say they won’t tolerate a single round fired at us,” Colonel Shoffner told me.
This is not propaganda from the Army. It really is true. No one shoots at American soldiers in Graya’at. If the friendliness of the locals was a complete and total sham, somebody would shoot. Instead they rat out insurgents. Every unit I went on patrol with was made up only of American soldiers. Local Iraqi Army Sadr supporters did not follow us around the city like portable human shields.
On the other hand, some of the locals support Moqtada al Sadr, whose militiamen kill American soldiers.
On the third hand, fighting in Iraq between American soldiers and the Mahdi Army militia rises and falls like the tide. There are times when Sadr’s men don’t act like enemies at all, and not only in localized areas like Graya’at.
“Sometimes Sadr puts out notices saying no attacks on coalition forces,” Master Sergeant Tyler told me. “He explicitly says that violators will be executed. They he’ll turn around and tell them to launch as many attacks in the next five days as possible.”
Sadr’s Army, it seems, deploys violence against Americans as a way to earn points in negotiations. This would make him and his militia less extreme than Al Qaeda. If diplomacy between the two sides is going well, attacks are called off. If the Americans hold out on something Sadr wants or needs, attacks are resumed or ramped up.
I asked several people what might happen if Moqtada al Sadr was pulled out of the Iranian orbit and flipped to the American side, as the tribal leaders of Anbar Province have been brought around to the American side. Sadr would still live in fear of Saddam Hussein if the Americans never arrived and destroyed the old government. A peaceful coexistence of some sort is at least theoretically possible if he can be peeled away from Iran with money and promises.
“I think the reason the U.S. hasn’t killed Sadr yet is because they are trying to flip him to their side,” said Hammer. “All it takes is money. It’s all about money money money for these guys. He has only 16 percent support among the Shia. I am a Shia. I know lots of Shia in Sadr City who hate and fear him, but he has lots of power and influence.”
“If we flip Sadr Iraq might very well reach a tipping point,” Master Sergeant Tyler told me. “The war might be all but technically over. But there would be some blowback from the Sunni side at first.”
Sounds great, but it begs the question: is a tactical alliance with Moqtada al Sadr even desirable?
“I have a story for you,” said an Army interpreter named Feris who moved from Damascus, Syria, to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in 1967. “There’s someone you need to meet around the back of the building.”
I grabbed my camera and notepad. Feris took me behind the Tactical Operations Center to the far edge of the outpost.
“Come on,” he said and led me into an area concealed in camouflage netting and roped off with razor wire.
“Are we allowed to be back here?” I said.
“Doesn’t matter,” he said. “Come on, so the others can’t see.”
An Iraqi civilian waited for us where others could not see. He panicked when he saw my camera and hurriedly covered his face and turned his back.
“No pictures, no pictures,” Feris said.
“Okay,” I said. “No problem. Tell him I won’t take his picture.”
Feris put his hand over the lens. I pointed the camera at the ground and said “No picture, no picture.”
The Iraqi who waited turned and looked me in the eye.
“Jaysh al Mahdi took me,” he said. “They kidnapped me and dragged me off to the mosque where they beat me.”
“Where?” I said. He didn’t speak any English. Feris translated.
“To the Ahl al Bayt mosque in Sadr City,” he said. “It is next to Muzaffer Square and the Fire Department in Area 55. It is loaded with weapons. Every mosque in Sadr City is full of weapons. At every mosque in Sadr City they beat people. I can take you right to the spot where they beat me.”
I won’t be going to Sadr City any time soon, but anyone who needs to know where the Ahl al Bayt mosque is shouldn’t have much trouble finding it.
He took off his shirt and turned around. More than a dozen horizontal red and blue bruises crisscrossed his back like blunt lash marks.
“They beat me with iron sticks,” he said, “and fired a gun in the air next to my head.”
Then they shaved his head. The Mahdi Army does this to people they kidnap, to mark them, perhaps, or to humiliate them.
“Why?” I said. “Why did they do this to you?”
“Because I work here,” I said.
He works at the outpost as a civilian, not for the Americans but for the Iraqis.
“They say I work with Americans,” he said. “It’s not true. I told them I don’t even speak English. How can I work with Americans? I want to work with Americans, but I’m afraid. If I could I would kill them and stay on this base forever.”
“Where did they kidnap you?” I said. “From here?”
“They took me from the street in Sadr City,” he said. “They know where I live.”
“How do they know you work here?” I said.
He gestured toward the building where Iraqi Army soldiers live and sleep. Of course.
“The Iraqi Army told them,” he said.
“How do you know?” I said. “How do you know it was them?”
“No one else knows I work here,” he said. “Only them.”
If the young man is right, the Mahdi Army sympathizers who infiltrated the Iraqi Army barracks may be a little bit more than the mere passive sympathizers Master Sergeant Tyler suggested.
He lit another cigarette from what remained of his first.
“I smoke so much because I’m upset,” he said.
He took out his cell phone and pointed at the screen.
“They found a video of girls dancing on my phone,” he said. “They deleted it and put a picture of Moqtada al Sadr on it instead. If you have a Sadr picture on your phone, that’s okay, that’s good. If you have a picture of anything else on your phone they will beat you. I don’t like the sonofabitch. Why would I want his picture on my phone?
I kept looking behind me to make sure no one in the Iraqi Army saw us talking. It probably wouldn’t make any difference, but it seemed like something I should do.
Feris shifted his weight from one foot to the other and kept sighing deeply. He was clearly upset. He grew up in Syria under the brutal regime of Hafez al Assad, but has lived in Iowa longer than I’ve been alive. He is hardly more accustomed to hearing these kinds of stories than I am.
“Is there anything you can do to protect yourself?” I asked the young Iraqi.
“What can I do?” he said. “No one can stop Jaysh al Mahdi. They live in the 16th Century. Everyone I know in Sadr City hates Moqtada al Sadr, but they can do nothing. Many people want the Americans to invade.”
I did not need to ask questions. He just kept on talking.
“Jaysh al Mahdi has a special car they use to pack people in, take them away, and shoot them,” he said. “They have people on street corners watching out for American soldiers. They watch the city at night with night vision goggles. If anyone is out after midnight they think you’re a spy.”
He was on a roll now, telling me everything, unprompted, because I was a safe person to talk to and because I stood there and listened.
“Sadr is getting rich from Iranian money. They offered me money to join them. 3 million dinars [slightly less than 2,500 dollars.]. They wanted me as a fighter. But I said no. I won’t do that. I hate Jaysh al Mahdi.”
I heard the low sharp boom of outgoing artillery somewhere off in the distance, perhaps from Camp Taji north of the city. It is not a common sound in Iraq. I only heard it once every three days or so, and even then I only heard two or three outgoing shells being fired. Kinetic fire fights do erupt in Iraq, but I haven’t seen or heard any yet.
“They tied my hands behind my back,” he continued. “They kicked my knees backwards.” His lifted up the legs of his pants. Feris looked away. “They made me lay on my stomach and put heavy iron on my back. I had to sleep like that for five nights. My back is all screwed up now.”
“But you still have this job,” I said, “even though they beat you for having it.”
“I have to support my family. My Mom and Dad don’t work. Everyone in Sadr City is very poor. My whole family lives there, except my brother. He went to Lebanon. So many terrorists and criminals live there. If we had money we would all move tomorrow, but I only make 300 dollars a month. We have no TV, nothing, at my house. No one else from my family works. My Dad is too old and has a bad back. My Mom is too old. I want to get married. I’m engaged, but I have no money to get married.”
Neighborhoods all over Baghdad are being cleared of terrorists and insurgents as part of the surge. American soldiers are pushing them out of the city and moving into small houses and stations themselves in the neighborhoods where they can maintain security 24 hours a day. But Sadr City is still a no-go zone for American troops. I asked several high-ranking officers why, but they either don’t know or they don’t want to tell me.
“What if the US assaults Sadr City?” I said.
“We would all love that,” he said. “Everyone except the Mahdi Army would love that. Every single person I know hates Moqtada al Sadr.”
But some people do like Moqtada al Sadr. Someone in Graya’at put up a billboard with his face on it.
Lieutenant William H. Lord told me earlier that when American soldiers have gone into Sadr City in the past, children flipped them off and threw rocks. Children in our area of Baghdad, by contrast, treat the American soldiers like heroes. General Petraeus has his work cut out for him if and when he decides to surge into Sadr’s domain.
“Even Saddam was better than Jaysh al Mahdi,” he said. “They treat everyone bad. Americans treat us good. Sadr does not. They say Americans rape our women. They lie. It is just propaganda. Americans have plenty of women. Jaysh al Mahdi rapes our women for real. They are animals. But soon enough their day is coming.”
He got antsy and seemed to feel he spent too much time talking to me. He had to get back to work before someone noticed him missing.
“I cry all the time,” he said just before he set off. “I wish I was outside Iraq where I would not have to be afraid.”
I shook his hand. He returned to his post. And I felt useless. What could I do for this man? There are so many with stories like his in Iraq.
“What kind of country is this,” Feris said to me in a trembling voice, “where people do this sort of thing to their own people?”
Meanwhile, or at least so it appeared, I was safer at that outpost because the Mahdi Army was there. They did not want to hurt their own people with rockets and mortars. Moqtada al Sadr’s infiltrators and sympathizers enveloped me in a force field.
Iraq is a strange country. Where else can American civilians like me be protected by terrorist human shields?
Postscript: Please support independent journalism. Traveling to and working in Iraq is expensive. I can’t publish dispatches on this Web site for free without substantial reader donations, so I'll appreciate it if you pitch in what you can. Blog Patron allows you to make recurring monthly payments, and even small donations will be extraordinarily helpful so I can continue this project.
If you prefer to use Pay Pal, that is still an option.
If you would like to donate for travel and equipment expenses and you don't want to send money over the Internet, please consider sending a check or money order to:
Michael Totten
P.O. Box 312
Portland, OR 97207-0312
Many thanks in advance.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at August 14, 2007 09:58 PMThanks so much, Michael, for your integrity. This is just a devastating report. What a terribly sad situation.
Posted by: Pam at August 14, 2007 10:13 PMI am no expert, but it looks like everyone has a day coming to them in Iraq. I will laugh when Sadr has his and I hope someone loads it on youtube just like Saddams bad day. Same goes for the clerics in Tehran.
Posted by: mikek at August 14, 2007 10:40 PMWhat a mess. Tragic.
Do the people of Iraq ever talk about splitting Iraq into separate entities? I know this is not the outcome that the US wants but it may be the only path to a more peaceful outcome. Oil revenue sharing, I would imagine, is the top issue for the three main factions.
I believe that Iraq is going to splinter into three separate parts eventually. I view this as inevitable. It's just a matter of how that happens; either via a very bloody revolution or as part of a political agreement similar to the "Velvet Revlolution" of Czechoslovakia.
Posted by: Graham at August 14, 2007 10:50 PMAccording to Bill Roggio, Sadr City is certainly not a no-go zone.
Practically every day he lists joint Coalition and Iraqi attacks on the JAM, many of them taking place in Sadr City.
Here's a very successful raid in Sadr City that killed at least 30 JAM creeps:
http://tinyurl.com/yqzh62
I've seen photos of Polish, Iraqi, American, and strange unidentified long-haired operators without helmets (probably western European) conducting raids in Sadr City.
The problem with this war is we the public have no idea who to believe. Just a few months ago, everybody--and I mean everybody--told us that al Anbar was a lost cause.
Now we're being told that nothing is or will be done about the JAM.
Bad news sells.
Posted by: Tom W. at August 14, 2007 11:32 PMThis is a bad condition there in Iraq! Will The US still pull out and leave some innocent people to die for nothing?
Posted by: Furica at August 15, 2007 12:54 AMThanks for the report, Michael.
I've always been very suspicious of any "good news from Iraq," and this report only confirms the ambiguity of that nation's health. Totten finds a lot of friendly people who seem more ambiguous at second glance.
They seem to like Americans to the extent Americans leave them alone. This lack of trust makes for a difficult road for any U.S. government, let alone the Bush administration, which is not known for its subtlety.
I remain hopeful but pessimistic about America's adventure in Iraq. I look back at my youthful enthusiasm for the war with a mixture of disgust and amazement.
May it end for the best of Iraq.
DU
Posted by: The Mechanical Eye at August 15, 2007 01:10 AMDidn't the Kurds also work with the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war and receive Iranian aid and weapons?
Posted by: Aaron at August 15, 2007 01:24 AMMr. Totten,
As you know I've always questioned how we label actors in Iraq. I had one question about a paragraph from your piece. I need clarification so that I understand well what you are saying:
Until recently the biggest threat was from the adjacent neighborhood just on the other side of the Tigris. It hasn’t been cleared of insurgents. When the War Eagle outpost was still struck by mortars, they were fired from there over the water. It is the insurgents in that sector who apparently have decided to stop attacking the outpost so they won’t hurt their comrades who infiltrated the base.
You say this base, War Eagle, used to be attacked by "insurgents" from the other side of the river. Then those "insurgents" decided to stop firing on the base so they wouldn't kill their own kind. The impression you give in your piece is that the locals surrounding this base are "Shi'ites," especially ones tied with Moqtada Al-Sadr. Do you consider these Shi'ites to be "insurgents" like the Sunnis? What is an "insurgent" in the realm of Iraq to you?
Thank you,
Dan
Posted by: Dan at August 15, 2007 03:27 AMIt seems likely to me that any group of Iraqi soldiers will include individuals with different opinions about El-Sadr; that these individuals will not tell each other truthfully what they think; and that any of them will change his views from day to day, or even depending on who he last spoke to.
If you want to divide up Iraq, I think you will have to cut through the middle of most people's heads.
Posted by: Don Cox at August 15, 2007 03:44 AMMr. Totten,
Don’t ask me to explain it. Moqtada al Sadr is an enemy of the United States. His militiamen kill or at least try to kill Americans every day elsewhere in Baghdad. How anyone in Iraq could support both him and the Americans is beyond me. Iraq is a bewildering country. I can tell you what I see and what I hear, but I can’t unravel and explain with confidence the contradictions in the hearts and minds of its people. The Kurds are fairly straightforward and easy to read. The recently turned pro-American Arabs of Anbar Province likewise aren’t too complicated these days. Baghdad, though, is all but impenetrable. I don’t suggest you trust any Westerner who hasn’t spent years there who says he or she understands the alleyways and secrets of that city.
I need to ask a few more questions here in this section. First of all you say Al-Sadr is an "enemy of the United States." What makes him an enemy of ours? And what are you implying should be our actions? How is Al-Sadr any different than any of those "pro-American Arabs of Anbar?"
As to how people can support him and the Americans at the same time, it isn't that mysterious. As with any Iraqi, their support of this or that interest depends on how it benefits them. Culturally speaking, a Shi'ite has far more in common with his fellow Shi'ites than with any American. It shouldn't actually be a surprise that Shi'ites, especially in Sadr City would having sharing allegiances, even when they are at complete odds with each other. If you actually expect Shi'ites to be fully supportive of our actions then you don't know Shi'ites well enough, and you have forgotten what happened in 1991. Shi'ites have not forgotten, and as such they will use us as much as they can to ensure they end up in a better situation once we end up leaving.
You say that the "pro-American Arabs of Anbar" are "easy to read these days." Why are they easy to read and Sadr not? What makes them easy to read? Is it because they have been bought by the Americans? Why are they actually not MORE complicated to read because they suddenly turned and now support Americans? What is their endgame? I actually think it is easier to understand al-Sadr and his supporters than the Sunnis who have turned. Because al-Sadr has actually been quite consistent.
Posted by: Dan at August 15, 2007 04:30 AMEach of these dispatches are tremendous reading.
However, what nags at me is: is the person being interviewed saying what he assumes Michael Totten wants to hear?
Moqtada Al-Sadr sounds like a classic thug leader.
Posted by: erik at August 15, 2007 04:51 AMErik: is the person being interviewed saying what he assumes Michael Totten wants to hear?
Why would he? The Mahdi Army beat the CRAP out of him. I saw the marks on his body. And I did not seek him out. He came to me through Feris. I did not even know he existed until he came to me.
Dan: Do you consider these Shi'ites to be "insurgents" like the Sunnis?
I don't like the word "insurgent," but everyone including the US Army calls even Al Qaeda "insurgents" these days, as well as the Mahdi Army, so I have surrendered to the use of the term.
What makes [Sadr] an enemy of ours?
He and his men kill Americans every day. He is by definition an enemy, and he describes himself thusly.
And what are you implying should be our actions?
I don't know. I'm not advocating or implying anything.
How is Al-Sadr any different than any of those "pro-American Arabs of Anbar?"
He kills Americans, and they are our friends and allies.
I went to Anbar myself and will write about it and the people who live there shortly.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 15, 2007 06:21 AMDan: You say that the "pro-American Arabs of Anbar" are "easy to read these days." Why are they easy to read and Sadr not? What makes them easy to read?
I will get to this in several upcoming articles.
Is it because they have been bought by the Americans?
They definitely haven't been bought. Let's not discuss now, though. Wait until I write about them in detail.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 15, 2007 06:23 AMSounds great, but it begs the question: is a tactical alliance with Moqtada al Sadr even desirable?
-MJT
No. It would be politically expedient in the short term, but it would be very unwise in the long run.
Unfortunately, it looks like the current Iraqi government depends on his faction for votes, which means that he is unlikely to be arrested and put on trial for the actions of the men he commands.
I've seen photos of Polish, Iraqi, American, and strange unidentified long-haired operators without helmets (probably western European) conducting raids in Sadr City.
-Tom W.
The long-haired types are probably US SOCOM- regular Army have to have the regulation cut, the rules are different for special ops types.
I need to ask a few more questions here in this section. First of all you say Al-Sadr is an "enemy of the United States." What makes him an enemy of ours?
-Dan
Forces under his command take hostile action against our soldiers.
How is Al-Sadr any different than any of those "pro-American Arabs of Anbar?
-Dan
The 'pro-American Arabs of Anbar' have stopped tanking hostile action against out soldiers.
Posted by: rosignol at August 15, 2007 07:44 AMI told him what I had heard. “I can print rumor or fact,” I said.
That's a great line.
This report makes the situation much clearer than the muddled reports I read in Time or Newsweek. (No wonder their subscriptions are falling) Sadr is a fairly standard gangster/thug. He offers "protection", from his own insurgents and the Sunni suicide bombers, he demands respect and if he gets what he wants, he's copascetic.
Although they're willing to work with us to ensure that the 'protection' continues, I'd guess that the Americans would have a hard time getting him on our side. First, we're not going to be there forever, Iran is. Second, we don't share his goals and we would prefer to be rid of him.
If we wanted to negotiate in earnest, we'd probably have to show that we are capable of destroying him, and give an offer he can't refuse. But when we are capable of destroying him and his army, there will be no real point (for us) to negotiation. I'd guess that the great and glorious al Sadr (may Allah pick his nose) knows that.
I'd read that the Mahdi army 'talibanizes' their territory, by bombing or otherwise destroying symbols of decadence, like movie theaters, liquor stores, barber shops, unveiled women, girls schools, etc. Did the Graya’at neighborhood appear to be talibanized?
Posted by: mary at August 15, 2007 08:00 AMWIth 'reporters'like you, we don't need enemies. Who are you voting for? Hillary or Obama? Oregon gives your bias away!
Posted by: CCH at August 15, 2007 08:00 AMJust a thought, but maybe the people of Sadr City hate the Americans so much because they're the only ones not getting Girl Scout cookies.
Think of how much it would piss you off if everyone got cookies except you. Personally, I'd be pissed off enough to storm out the door with my AK-47 and look for the people who neglected me.
We should step up those kinds of patrols. Since they avoid firing at their own people, maybe the Americans could have special teams of captured insurgent Girl Scouts distributing them.
Posted by: Edgar at August 15, 2007 08:06 AM"I don't know. I'm not advocating or implying anything."
WHAT?!
How dare you? HOW DARE YOU! All journalists are required to advocate SOMETHING! Have you no respect for the activism of Seymour Hersh and Walter Cronkite? There are journalists risking death at the hands of CIA assassins and Christian evangelists to bring about a pefect world with nothing to kill, die, or live for, and you profane their bravery by reporting all these goddamned facts, like you're writing some kind of journal! THAT IS NOT WHAT JOURNALISTS DO!
I swear to Marx, next you'll be saying you're at a greater risk of being killed by an Arab than by a WASP.
Posted by: Tatterdemalian at August 15, 2007 08:11 AMMary: Did the Graya’at neighborhood appear to be talibanized?
Not at all. It felt pretty comfortable, actually.
CCH: WIth 'reporters'like you, we don't need enemies. Who are you voting for? Hillary or Obama? Oregon gives your bias away!
You have no idea how stupid you look to people who are familiar with my work. I vote for members of both parties, and I don't know which party I'm voting for next year.
As far as Oregon goes, registered Independents outnumber registered Democrats and registered Republicans. You probably didn't know that, though, did you?
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 15, 2007 08:24 AMyour interpreter says it's all about the benjamins when it come to sadr and the others.
i think this is wrong. dead wrong.
the islamic extremists are not interested in money, and they cannot be bought.
witness hamas in gaza. they have made zero moves toward the west to get money.
these islamic extremists can never ever be brought into our sphere of influence.
this is why they must be defeated - wiped out - erased.
like we did to the nazis and nazism.
and this is why the answer for peace in iraq is the same as for those who want peace in lebanon and israel:
regime change in iran - or at least bringing them to their knees, economically and by wiping out their military and nuke assets..
Posted by: reliapundit at August 15, 2007 08:37 AMCCH: "WIth 'reporters'like you, we don't need enemies. Who are you voting for? Hillary or Obama? Oregon gives your bias away!"
Brother,
I know many Oregonians who would never vote for those two morons. But more to the point, your lack of moderation is leading you to make wild generalizations. Have you read much of MJT's body of work? If he is a democrat, I say WE NEED MORE LIKE HIM!!!! It isn't dem or repub here; it's taking a no bullshit assessment and seeing the danger where it lies. And it most certainly lies with the Islamofascist creed that permeates the ME, i.e. Hezbollah, Hamas, JAM, and the nefarious Iranian regime. Something is also very rotten in the good ol' USA and we may find that our worst enemies live among us. There are many tools and useful idiots calling themselves Americans. However, IMHO, Michael Totten is NOT one of them.
'nuff said
Posted by: John at August 15, 2007 08:40 AMmichael: anyone who admits they don't know which party their voting for in 2008 is a.... fool: there is not a single solitary dependable hawk in the dem party.
they cannot be trusted with national security and defense of the free world.
any gop candidate for the nomination with a chance at the nomination is better than any dem, PERIOD.
your inability to admit that is stupid or phony: perhaps you are trying to appear as a moderate/non-partisan in order to keep your traffic up?
dunno.
but it is foolish.
imho.
all the best!
Posted by: reliapundit at August 15, 2007 08:40 AMClearly there is not 'unified' solution for Iraq. Any attempt to "flip" a crazy man has to stability or promise. This report is extremely valuable in any attempt to begin to understand how complex and illogical this part of the world is, always has been, and always will be. Thanks for your work. Keep it up.
www.greensrealworld.blogspot.com
Posted by: James Halm at August 15, 2007 08:55 AManyone who admits they don't know which party their voting for in 2008 is a.... fool
Gee, I always thought that people who habitually and unthinkingly vote along party lines were fools. Takes all kinds
Posted by: mary at August 15, 2007 09:03 AMReliapundit,
You are banned from posting here, remember? You called me an anti-Semite on your blog and darkly suggested that I worked for Hezbollah.
(I notice you deleted that post. At least some sense seemed to grip you in hindsight.)
In any case, get out and stay out you creepy bastard.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 15, 2007 09:07 AMMr. Totten,
Thank you for your answers. I eagerly await your report from the Anbar province.
Posted by: Dan at August 15, 2007 09:08 AMMichael-
Excellent reportage. I just made my first donation to support your efforts. Wish it could be more.
best regards
Posted by: MisterH at August 15, 2007 09:16 AMGreat reporting as usual Michael.
Your description of Sadr City reminds me of the dynamics one finds in some poor black neighborhoods in the US, though on a much lower scale. The gangs 'protect' the hood and enforce arbitrary justice and many of the residents of the neighborhood are too ignorant to assert themselves. As long as they are kept poor by the gangs, they have to put up with it. Sadr is just like Castro, Stalin, Kim Jong-Il.
The Democrats tried to build this subserviency through high-taxes and the welfare state in the US but thankfully, they were not as successful as the others I just mentioned. Though we must remain vigilant.
Posted by: Keith at August 15, 2007 09:31 AMPeople call al Sadr a 'just a typical thug' and 'gangster' -- that ignores his obvious political and military sophistication and goals. I suppose, but to me he is 'just' the newest iteration of religiously-cloaked warlord -- he is Nasrallah, not Arafat, not Saddam.
I suspect Hammer is wrong that it's only about money at that level. Money helps, but money only buys the frosting, not the cake. If the US thinks they can flip this guy into becoming 'ours' it just shows our ME policy really is as self-deluding, short-sighted, and schizophrenogenic as it has long appeared. We'll what -- offer al Sadr $20 Billion in weapons to match the Saudis? For what -- oil rights? What's a little Sunni blowback, anyhow? Iran wouldn't be ecstatic at that?
If you want to divide up Iraq, I think you will have to cut through the middle of most people's heads. Wonderful line, Don Cox.
Posted by: Pam at August 15, 2007 09:47 AM
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 08/15/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Thanks Michael. This is your second post I have read. I am grateful for the service you provide to your fellow citizens by being there and reporting as you do, so I am sending you a donation today. I also admire your ability to put up with the ludicrous certitude of armchair wingnuts so many thousands of miles away.
Have you followed the controversy over Pollack and O'Hanlon's reportage on the war being winnable and do you have any insights regarding the charges that their 8 day trip was controlled by the military and that they themselves have long been involved in Iraq planning and thus their assessments are completely unreliable?
Stay safe.
Posted by: MT57 at August 15, 2007 09:57 AMOnly if and when people suffer the consequences of thuggery and butchery in their neighborhoods do they "flip". Flip does not apply to al Sadre as such leaders frequently remain unscathed for decades while others suffer. Torture is a means of gaining submission and that submission is claimed in the name of Allah. That will not come to any screeching halt any time soon -- it has persisted in the Middle East for some 1400 years at the hands of their leaders whose accountability is never open to question.
Posted by: JAS at August 15, 2007 09:57 AMMichael, I have been introduced to you through Bill Roggio. Amazing work!
Welcome back home! Oregan is awesome. Not all of us back home are like Muqtada Al Sadr . . . Reliapundit excluded of course.
Posted by: anand at August 15, 2007 10:43 AMDon Cox: If you want to divide up Iraq, I think you will have to cut through the middle of most people's heads.
There's a powerful bit of dialogue in James Longley's film Iraq in Fragments, which I recommend everyone see. (It's on DVD now.)
Man: The future of Iraq will be in three pieces.
Child: Iraq cannot be cut into pieces. Iraq is a country. How do you cut a country into pieces? With a saw?Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 15, 2007 10:47 AM
Michael,
In any case, get out and stay out you creepy bastard.
So, I guess you've gotten over the jet lag a bit?
Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell at August 15, 2007 10:51 AMMT57: Have you followed the controversy over Pollack and O'Hanlon's reportage on the war being winnable
No, but I read the article.
do you have any insights regarding the charges that their 8 day trip was controlled by the military
I doubt this is true. The military certainly wasn't in control of my trip. They asked me where I wanted to go. I said "Baghdad and Ramadi," so that's where I went. Pollak is a much more "important" person than me, so I doubt very much that I would have an easier time having freedom to travel in Iraq than he did.
they themselves have long been involved in Iraq planning and thus their assessments are completely unreliable?
I have no idea if this is true or if it isn't. For what it's worth, I agree with much of what they wrote, but with some reservations. You can see in this article of mine why I hesitate to be too optimistic here.
Ramadi is a dramatic success story, more than most Americans have any idea. I have no idea, though, if what worked there can work in Baghdad. Maybe it can and maybe it can't. Baghdad is a real mess, and progress there is limited and unstable so far.
I'm in "wait and see" mode, myself.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 15, 2007 10:58 AMMr. Totten,
I doubt this is true. The military certainly wasn't in control of my trip. They asked me where I wanted to go. I said "Baghdad and Ramadi," so that's where I went. Pollak is a much more "important" person than me, so I doubt very much that I would have an easier time having freedom to travel in Iraq than he did.
In an interview with Glenn Greenwald, O'Hanlon confirmed that the military organized their tour, including who they could speak with. O'Hanlon and Brooks did not get to choose to speak with Iraqis outside the control of the military.
Ramadi is a dramatic success story, more than most Americans have any idea.
I am curious, did you go to Ramadi? Did you see it for yourself? If not, what is your source that Ramadi is a "dramatic success story?"
Posted by: Dan at August 15, 2007 11:07 AMI'm not passing judgement until I see the results, Mike, but according to USDOD data, there are still a lot of attacks on American troops happening in Anbar and they're not all AQI.
I've heard plenty about the Anbar Awakening by now, but the non-AQI Sunni insurgency has fallen off the media map unless you talk to an academic expert reading the regional media. For the US media, the Sunni insurgency has ceased to exist, except as "Al-Quieda".
I hope your recording provides some insight and info not just on all the Sunni insurgents who have settled down to high-five us, but also on the ones who haven't. The picture is rather incomplete without them. Unless, of course, someone on record said something like, "there aren't anymore Sunni insurgents left except Al-Quieda." Sure, I'd be skeptical, but that would be more credible than the dissapear-by-omission trick that the US policy complex has been directing to the media.
Posted by: glasnost at August 15, 2007 11:07 AMA lot of stuff you're reporting here contradicts a lot of stuff I've read, Mike, including from official US sources, expressing uncertainty and doubt as to whether Al-Sadr has been involved in attacks on US forces since the Najaf uprising of 2004. No more than six months ago, President Bush avoided answering the question "Is Moqtada Al-Sadr an enemy of the US" in an interview with 60 Minutes. He gave a conditional answer.
You're reporting Al-Sadr's direction of JAM attacks on US forces as fact. But you don't document any evidence in your reporting, although you do quote Master Sergeant Tyler.
The US sources in question, and yeah, I'll find them, give me a day or two, have suggested that JAM attacks on US forces are made by 'rogue' affiliates at Iranian behest. They go on to describe JAM as more of a mob than a tightly-controlled organization, with local leaders who go their own way whenever they like.
Have a comment?
Posted by: glasnost at August 15, 2007 11:14 AMYes, Dan, I spent a week in Ramadi. It was a powerful and unforgettable experience. The situation out there is very different from that in Baghdad.
Glasnost, there are still pockets of violence in Anbar, I know. I really should only talk about Ramadi and the outskirts of Ramadi because that is the area I am familiar with. Anbar is an enormous place. Ramadi is its capital.
Let's wait until I start writing about it before getting into discussions. I should save my energy for the dispatches and not get ahead of myself by wasting time covering it here first.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 15, 2007 11:14 AMRamadi is a dramatic success story, more than most Americans have any idea. I have no idea, though, if what worked there can work in Baghdad. Maybe it can and maybe it can't. Baghdad is a real mess, and progress there is limited and unstable so far.
Is Ramadi a success in that the Iraqi civil society and military strength is enough now for it to stay that way? if it can flip back the minute we take our eyes off it then it is not yet a success. Same with Anbar and others. If a crucial percentage of the population hasn't fully committed to a civil society and have the wherewithal to enforce it, then we are just going to be playing whack-a-mole some more.
I know our goal is to spread that level of committment more and more until it has taken root sufficiently that we can withdraw, and I know that will probably take years, overall. But are these newly peaceful areas successes at that level and if not,how close are they?
Posted by: Yehudit at August 15, 2007 11:18 AMFor the record, I have no doubt that Sadr is a thug. Whether he's a popular thug or not appears to be a question of dispute.
Pam, how's things?
If the US thinks they can flip this guy into becoming 'ours' it just shows our ME policy really is as self-deluding, short-sighted, and schizophrenogenic as it has long appeared. We'll what -- offer al Sadr $20 Billion in weapons to match the Saudis? For what -- oil rights? What's a little Sunni blowback, anyhow? Iran wouldn't be ecstatic at that?
So, if he's not ours, shall we frag him? Then we'll find out how popular he really is, huh? If the Shiites all throw parades, we win! If they start really going after us, we lose.
I usually argue against that approach, mostly because a broad Shiite conflict with the US routs us out of the country. The US military doesn't think killing him is such a hot idea, either, apparently. I think that's a better answer about his grass-roots support than listening to the opinions of, well, individuals.
So, if we're not going to kill him, and we're not going to flip him, what exactly shall we do?
Posted by: glasnost at August 15, 2007 11:23 AMYehudit: Is Ramadi a success in that the Iraqi civil society and military strength is enough now for it to stay that way?
Almost. At least that's what the Army and Marines there seem to believe.
Again, let me write about Ramadi on the main page first. I should spend the energy explaining that place in dispatches before I do it in the comments.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 15, 2007 11:24 AMExcellent work. Keep it up. It is been my experience that the contradictions you mention in the report are very understandable reactions of people put in situations like the Iraqis are, 1.e. trapped in completely bizzare circumstances in which death or injury can visit them without logic or reason at any time.
Under these circumstances, time shortens, loyalties are transitory because survival and the well being of one's family has to be confronted on a minute by minute basis, no one can be trusted. The stakes that people are playing for there far exceeds anything we might encounter in the U.S.
Again, keep up the good work and ignore the posts where people inject their own political agendas into what seems to me to be pretty raw and unbaised coverage on your part.
Posted by: TOC at August 15, 2007 11:35 AMExcellent work. Keep it up. It is been my experience that the contradictions you mention in the report are very understandable reactions of people put in situations like the Iraqis are, 1.e. trapped in completely bizarre circumstances in which death or injury can visit them without logic or reason at any time.
Under these circumstances, time shortens, loyalties are transitory because survival and the well being of one's family has to be confronted on a minute by minute basis, no one can be trusted. The stakes that people are playing for there far exceeds anything we might encounter in the U.S.
Again, keep up the good work and ignore the posts where people inject their own political agendas into what seems to me to be pretty raw and unbaised coverage on your part.
Posted by: TOC at August 15, 2007 11:37 AMYehudit's question is right on the dot.
Is Ramadi a success in that the Iraqi civil society and military strength is enough now for it to stay that way? if it can flip back the minute we take our eyes off it then it is not yet a success.
What was the town that Gen. Petraeus oversaw back in like 2004 that was a short-lived success? The name is not coming to me right now.
There is a lot of dishonesty and miscommunication going on right now between the political leaders, the military and the American public. On the one hand, the American public, by a large majority, wish for the conflict to end, fairly soon, i.e. probably before the next election if they really had any voice on the issue. The political leaders are employing strategies that really only kick the can down the road for a while, most likely to run out the clock and let the next guy deal with it. This surge is not going to be effective as a short-term solution (there is no short term solution anymore), but it continues to be sold (through the infamous Friedman Units) to the American people as a short-term solution. Give it six months, they say. Just another six months and we'll go from there for another six months. The military, following the chain of command, also speaks in confusing terms. On the one hand they follow political leaders and pundits in claiming this is short term (six months), but on the other, they float the more realistic possibility that this really will take more like TEN YEARS before we're anywhere close to a resolvable position.
Are Americans willing to sacrifice for another ten years? Are they willing to lose another 10,000 soldiers? Are they willing to spend another $1 trillion dollars (oops, sorry, not spend, but put on a credit card for future generations to pay)?
This dishonesty is sickening and counterproductive. What it does is not allow for a real discussion on whether or not we're really ready for the long haul. What is worse, when the time comes for us to actually leave, we will not have a proper discussion, nor a proper withdrawal, reaching to yet another helicopter packed on the roof of an embassy, another humiliating situation due to politicking rather than really allowing a debate.
My personal view, and the one I will look for in a candidate for president is that we should get out now and let the Iraqis fix their country on their own from here on out. It is not worth ten more years, 10,000 more Americans dead, and another $1 trillion to get Iraq in a situation a rational person could even consider "normal."
Posted by: Dan at August 15, 2007 11:37 AMAre they willing to lose another 10,000 soldiers?
I should add, do we even have another 10,000 soldiers to die for this cause? Are there not reports that the Army will be broken come next April? How many more tours must these soldiers go through before they are truly broken? Is this something that is really in the best interest of the security of our nation, to have a military so overused that they cannot effectively counter a move by a much stronger, and well rested military? Do we consider questions such as these? No. We can't. Because if we do, there will be plenty who will come out to question our patriotism. This is not good for our country.
Posted by: Dan at August 15, 2007 11:41 AMIt is dumbfounding that these morons (Mahdi Army) can march in the streets of Basra and our military is not there. What is going on? It seems to me that this type of march is a perfect target of opportunity for our military. Why weren't we there to attack and destroy these extermists?
Posted by: Mike at August 15, 2007 11:52 AM++
i just hope those responsible for the brutality & fear they've perpetrated upon this brave soul don't read this article.. :(
==
Posted by: bg at August 15, 2007 11:53 AMDan,
It is not worth ten more years, 10,000 more Americans dead, and another $1 trillion to get Iraq in a situation a rational person could even consider "normal."
But if we break the back of the tactic of terrorism and the pathology it represents, it will be cheap at twice the price. Providing Iraq with stability and prosperity is the condition we need to establish to achieve the end state of terror obsolescence, it is not the end state itself.
Or perhaps you have a better method of destroying terror as a method of compelling civilized peoples?
Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell at August 15, 2007 11:53 AMSimple views seem really complex when they are surrounded by craziness.
People support the US and Sadr because they want peace, which only the US will provide, and a Shiite theocracy, which only Sadr and Iran will provide. There is no contradiction. The US will not lift a finger (nor should it) to stop a popular, reasonably well behaved theocracy (think Saudi Arabia).
Sadr, on the other hand, insists on fighting the US for ideological reasons, not practical reasons. It's only compared to that lack of practicality that simultaneous support for Sadr and the US looks odd.
Is "Dan" even in the U.S.? I am only asking because the comments are almost exactly the same as comments I read on another website.
Posted by: mikek at August 15, 2007 12:04 PMDon't know, Glasnost, and don't pretend to. I'm saying that to disregard him as 'just' a gangster seems a dangerous oversimplification. It doesn't appear our policy-makers have made that mistake, or they would have taken him out.
I hope they don't make the mistake of thinking warlords are really flippable, especially for money. Saddam, Arafat -- they were corruptible, but even they were not entirely flippable. For rent, not for purchase.
I suspect al Sadr is probably better viewed as another Nasrallah -- criminal brutes, yes, but they have a very significant ideological stake in the appearance of incorruptability. In that they are clearly nurtured and guided by Iran financially, tactically, and ideologically, as opposed to being basically autonomous like Saddam or Arafat, finding leverage to persuade them to switch sides seems a total pipe dream.
I'm of the general view that assassinating such leaders tends to backfire. When Israel has taken out one problematic charismatic leader, frequently a more radical and more potent younger man grows into the gap -- e.g., Nasrallah. Maybe we have to try to limit their immediate scope, and let some of these guys age out of their youthful belligerence a bit.
Posted by: Pam at August 15, 2007 12:05 PM
Patrick,
Or perhaps you have a better method of destroying terror as a method of compelling civilized peoples?
I am not one who believes that a proper method or strategy to counter terrorism is the use of force. Terrorism is a tool for the militarily weak. It is the only tool in their arsenal that has the potency to make large, and far more powerful, nations to react and respond to them. The best counter to the use of such methods is to win the hearts of those who terrorists hope to recruit. Any action, no matter how big or how small, that undermines that strategy is completely counterproductive. Thusly responding to a terrorist strike with military force, wherein the chances of collateral damage are high, is a bad strategy and will come back to bite you in the ass.
Terrorists need to be labeled correctly. They are mere criminals. If we overhype them and their influence, that overhyping might just come to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. As mere criminals, the proper response to terrorists is their capture and their discrediting in the eyes of those they wish to recruit. Let them pretend to be martyrs. It might get a few more recruits, but this is a far better way to respond than with military force (which as we are seeing in both Afghanistan and Iraq, has not worked well at all).
Posted by: Dan at August 15, 2007 12:06 PMI hit the tip jar and I suggest others do the same.
Thanks Michael for the great post.
Posted by: joshlbetts at August 15, 2007 12:06 PMDan,
This report is a joke based on the typical view of someone under 25. If you are not under 25 than you are stupid and short-sighted instead of just ignorant.
Your reporting is that of a typical kid with an IQ of 75 and NO historical perspective. The responders who whine about "what a terrible situation we're in" have no understanding of history as well, and although they make you feel justified in your views, they are wrong.
If 25 soldiers died in the last 6 months in these areas, then the same people would be pissing and moaning about the American death toll. Quit your bitching, and study history. Then you won't make yourself out to be such a stupid kid to those who actually understand the necessary role war has played in societal development over the last 5000 years, and how without those wars (particularly since 1787), you would be executed for such tripe.
You have the mind of a 21 year old, and it shows. Write this piece again in 20 years and you'll be surprised at how your perspective changes with the wisdom only time can bring.
Thanks for your ignorance.
Ron Baker
PS if you think I'm full of it and want to call, just write back with your phone # and I'd love to chat.
Posted by: Ron Baker at August 15, 2007 12:10 PMYou might think this is a good story and that it was very investigative and original. However this information WILL kill american soldiers in that you have just leaked important intel to the enemy about our capabilities. Of course none of that matters when you are trying to make money for yourself
Posted by: joe smithers at August 15, 2007 12:14 PMDan,
I should add, do we even have another 10,000 soldiers to die for this cause?
Is 10,000 just a round number or something? Where did you get it?
Are there not reports that the Army will be broken come next April? How many more tours must these soldiers go through before they are truly broken?
Didn't you just read an article about how the army is spending hours passing out Girl Scout Cookies? Not to belittle the violence that our army is facing in other parts of the country but please! They are trained to engage in wars far worse than what they are facing; give them some credit. Plus, think of it this way, if there was any question before, there is none now that we have the best trained, most experienced military in the world. Armies are like muscles, they work better the more you use them.
Is this something that is really in the best interest of the security of our nation, to have a military so overused blah blah blah
I don't question your patriotism but I do question your manhood. These brave men and women volunteered for the military knowing the state of the world and what they would be doing. They got rid of a thug and now they are helping with security so Iraq can rebuild. Not everyone wants to sit in a cubicle somewhere and wring their hands on blog comment pages.
Hey, I am wondering whatever happened to Al Sadr being wanted for the murder of another cleric several years ago?? Seems that aspect of this "leader" gets mentioned rarely anymore - or is it that the U.S. contingent trying to buy this vermin's loyalty are just hoping that story just fades away?
Keep up the good work, you're obviously inspiring people to become somewhat involved.
Posted by: Rhino at August 15, 2007 12:23 PMMichael, any thoughts on what might happen if the US killed al Sadr?
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 15, 2007 12:29 PMIt's not our war. It's not our problem. Men will continue to be evil and do evil. It's time for America to take care of America.
Posted by: DC at August 15, 2007 12:33 PMMr. Totten, I find this passage surprising:
“A lot of the people around here are Sadr supporters,” said Sergeant Lizanne. “But they’re also pro-coalition. I don’t really understand how that works.”
Don’t ask me to explain it. Moqtada al Sadr is an enemy of the United States. His militiamen kill or at least try to kill Americans every day elsewhere in Baghdad. How anyone in Iraq could support both him and the Americans is beyond me.
Allow me to explain this for you. The "Coalition" is, for now, mostly fighting the Sunni insurgency. Al-Sadr expects to inherit the Iraqi state, and we are helping defeat his enemies. He wants the whole Iraqi state, not a chunk of it. Thus supporting him, and being friendly to the Americans, are perfectly compatible.
For now.
If the US attacks the Mehdi Army full-on, (or, God forbid, if we attack Iran) then I'll bet you will see a change in the attitude of Sadr supporters. And it will be very, very ugly for the United States.
Posted by: stickler at August 15, 2007 12:37 PMMy personal view, and the one I will look for in a candidate for president is that we should get out now and let the Iraqis fix their country on their own from here on out. It is not worth ten more years, 10,000 more Americans dead, and another $1 trillion to get Iraq in a situation a rational person could even consider "normal."
IOW, make it just like Vietnam. if we get out now, we will have desperate people trying to climb aboard US helicopters leaving from the roof of the embassy, or whatever the equivalent is. I think it's important to make sure we have a different result. A lot is in the news now about Iraqis working for the US who will be left out to dry if we leave - the Brits are already abandoning theirs. We already shafted the Shia in 1991. A lot is at stake, including our reputation for being fickle and the idea that gangs like AQ and Sadr can make us run just by hanging on longer than we do.
I will categorically refuse to vote for any candidate who wants to get out now.
Posted by: Yehudit at August 15, 2007 12:50 PMMichael,
I am from Portland OR, which I believe is your home. I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for what you are doing. Your writing is excellent, I wish their was more of you brave enough to tell the truth about a very unfortunate war. Through the media it is very difficult to tell the human side of war without trying to use it for shock value, politics or support for or against the cause. The Iraq war at its root, I believe is an unfortunate necessity, although not planned well, necessary..Sometimes the ugly stuff we just don't really want to face, but someone has to..Keep up the excellent work..I hope my gift helps you.
Cheers!
"you profane their bravery by reporting all these goddamned facts, like you're writing some kind of journal! THAT IS NOT WHAT JOURNALISTS DO!"
That is the stupidest and funniest thing I've read in a while.
Keep up the good work. Contribution enroute.
Posted by: Rando at August 15, 2007 12:51 PMGirl Scout Cookies....now there is something to win over peoples hearts and minds. If the Iraqis would just take a moment to sit down and enjoy a box of cookies it might come to them that any country that could produce and then have the heart to give away such a wonderful thing can't be half bad. A secret weapon I tell you.
Posted by: Gary Davis at August 15, 2007 12:52 PMMy personal view, and the one I will look for in a candidate for president is that we should get out now and let the Iraqis fix their country on their own from here on out. It is not worth ten more years, 10,000 more Americans dead, and another $1 trillion to get Iraq in a situation a rational person could even consider "normal."
IOW, make it just like Vietnam. if we get out now, we will have desperate people trying to climb aboard US helicopters leaving from the roof of the embassy, or whatever the equivalent is. I think it's important to make sure we have a different result. A lot is in the news now about Iraqis working for the US who will be left out to dry if we leave - the Brits are already abandoning theirs. We already shafted the Shia in 1991. A lot is at stake, including our reputation for being fickle and the idea that gangs like AQ and Sadr can make us run just by hanging on longer than we do.
I will categorically refuse to vote for any candidate who wants to get out now.
Posted by: Yehudit at August 15, 2007 12:53 PMWow, you're getting it from all sides today, Michael. That's what you get for not putting everything in black and white.
Great report, and one of my favoritesso far.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 15, 2007 12:57 PM++
my favorite..
"But soon enough their day is coming."
==
Posted by: bg at August 15, 2007 01:24 PMBut if we break the back of the tactic of terrorism and the pathology it represents, it will be cheap at twice the price.
Sure, but this is a wildly unrealistic goal. There's not a hope in h*ll that terrorism will never be used again, whether we "win" or "lose" in Iraq. This kind of talk makes it sound like, when some sort of timer finishes counting down in Iraq and we're still there, angry people with guns and bombs will all spontaneously combust.
Terrorism = political violence. The switching of power from one set of thugs to another set in Iraq, or even a set of semi-thugs with some nice technocrats thrown in, like Ayad Alawi, (sp), is going to end political violence on the planet?
Really?
Bets?
Or does "break the back" mean something other than that?
Posted by: glasnost at August 15, 2007 01:24 PMMr. Totten,
My brother-in-law is currently serving in the 82nd Airborne in Sadr City. I must say it was amazing reading your article because I have heard from my brother-in-law many stories about his experiences, a lot of which were nearly identical to the ones you related in this article about Sadr City (as a Humvee gunner, he has had rocks thrown at him several times by children!). I wasn't going to post a comment until I saw some of the shocking and ignorant things people were posting (probably the same ones that want Hillary Clinton to be our next President). The phrase "freedom isn't free" may sound cheesy and cliche, but it contains much truth. It IS horrible that our soldiers are dying everyday, and I could never thank them enough for their courage, but we must take the fight to the terrorists, even in their own lands. How soon everyone forgets 9/11! What must it take for these people to wake up and stop being so naive? Does there have to be a all-out nuclear war for people to realize that we must stop the crazy fundamentalists before they can concoct a MAJOR attack of biblical proportions?
I must say, my wife and I (along with both our families and friends I'm sure as well) dread turning on the news in the morning and hearing about the death of soldiers, and just waiting for the worst phone call of all phone calls. But what provides me comfort is that my family can live peacefully in our wonderful country due to their sacrafices. The alternative is the fear of some brutal fascist dictatorship oppressing our lives, which is what the people of Iraq potentially face if we are unsuccessful (and what they already experienced), and who knows, potentially what we may face someday if we don't have the stomach to stand and fight for our freedom. God bless our troops!
I remember when the Marines were fighting Sadr's army of thugs back in April 2004. Everyone started crying because the Marines were doing do good of a job of kicking their asses and our own Commander-in-Chief pulled them back. I cannot figure out why this man and his army are allowed to exist. We should surround Sadr City, drop leaflets on it, let the women and children out, and then level it. He is leading a rogue nation within the nation of Iraq. I don't see how Iraq can be stable as long as he is in power. I believe the correlation between Hezbollah and the Mahdi Army in the article is right on.
Posted by: Dan at August 15, 2007 01:47 PMI read this, and the more I thought about, I wonder, How could anyone want to pull our troops out and leave people with nothing but fear and death in their future? Are we really going to infuse another terrorist cell like Al Queda, or worse? I support our men and women over there and in Afghanistan fully. We are all Americans, our men and women died for this cause, I don't think it should be for nothing. That is exactly what it will be for, nothing. People who are always saying take care of America and only America, I have one question, What do you think America does? This is who we are, this is what we do. We do not sit back and watch, that is why we are the Free World.
Posted by: Michelle at August 15, 2007 01:52 PMglasnost,
I don't think anyone is suggesting that we can eradicate terrorism as a phenomenon.
What we can do is destroy the current school (Al-Qaeda-style terrorism) and make sure nobody else graduates.
I'm sure once we deal with this batch of assholes there will be new ones. Let's focus on getting rid of the ones that are actively plotting against us.
Posted by: Edgar at August 15, 2007 02:08 PMMichael, thanks for this report.
But I tell you, this sort of thing makes my blood boil. These people have been absolutely brutalized, and the day their tormentors get their comeuppance will be a glorious one.
Posted by: BC at August 15, 2007 02:09 PMThey say Americans rape our women. They lie. It is just propaganda. Americans have plenty of women. Jaysh al Mahdi rapes our women for real. They are animals.
Probably banal of me but I have always been curious because there is nothing ever said about the G.I. and local women. Definitely not Vietnam for sure. "Americans have plenty of women". Not really surprised but why have I never read this before? I mean boys will be boys and all.
Posted by: notahack at August 15, 2007 02:34 PMErik,
but we must take the fight to the terrorists, even in their own lands. How soon everyone forgets 9/11!
And just what did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Aren't the guys who attacked us on 9/11 sitting pretty in friendly Pakistan?
Posted by: Dan at August 15, 2007 02:35 PMDo you hear any feedback of our upcoming Presidential election in Iraq? Do you here of controversy if Hillary Clinton is our 44th President? Will Iraqi women feel any impowerment if she is the Leader Of the Free World?
Posted by: Stephen Link at August 15, 2007 02:42 PMThe Mahdi Army is Iran’s major proxy in Iraq.
Michael,
I've seen this repeatedly asserted, usually by right-of-center types who are trying to gin up a war with Iran, but never seen it substantiated. What evidence do you for it?
Base on the fact that they were created, trained, and continue to be supported by the Republican Guard, doesn't it seem more likely that SIIC and their militia, the Badr, are Iran's major proxy in Iraq?
Posted by: M. Duss at August 15, 2007 02:42 PMGreat post! It highlights exactly the great need we have to take out the Iranian regime ASAP. Iraq will simply never work with the Mullahs in power, they will always be able to turn the screws through their puppet Al Sadr (who is Nasrallah's cousin - no coincidence there). I think the Iranian strategy is to allow us to defeat their Sunni elements for them while biding time and strengthening Al Sadr both politically and militarily much the same way they built Hezbollah. Then they will unleash Al Sadr to establish their anti-American satellite state in Iraq. It is a terrific step we took as a nation today in declaring the entire Iranian Revolutionary Guard force a terrorist entity. This will allow us to take economic and at least kinetic covert action against them. It is absolutely necessary to crush the Mullahs by leveraging their very angry population against them while utilizing an Afghanistan-style campaign of SF / close air support and arming Iranian militias to bring the whole rotten Mullahcracy down. This will be the greatest thing ever done for Middle East stability and prosperity in the last century.
This Dan, is the LONG WAR. We must be willing to wage this war to the bitter end to undermine political Islam and the tactic of terror it employs. Only the establishment of free societies where the individuals accept responsibility for their own and national well-being will defeat the 1400 year-old cancer of political Islam.
Posted by: Evan at August 15, 2007 02:48 PM"You might think this is a good story and that it was very investigative and original. However this information WILL kill american soldiers in that you have just leaked important intel to the enemy about our capabilities" He's not saying anything that they don't already know. Trust me.
"It is dumbfounding that these morons (Mahdi Army) can march in the streets of Basra and our military is not there. What is going on? It seems to me that this type of march is a perfect target of opportunity for our military. Why weren't we there to attack and destroy these extermists?"
We're here (right now actually). Our hands are tied by the British government who owns this battlespace. They want JAM to work it out and leave us out of it... the pause is me ducking under my desk again waiting for another rocket to impact. Mike if you get time you should come down here. Your article could be titled "How politics is truly screwing up Iraq"
Posted by: Drew at August 15, 2007 03:02 PMReliapundit,
I think you're just trying to draw attention from the real issue.
You're anti-black.
If you really aren't a white supremacist, put the Wu-Tang symbol in a prominent place on your blog.
Posted by: Edgar at August 15, 2007 03:34 PMEnjoyed your article! I would like to comment on it, as follows below.
Iraq is a bewildering country. I can tell you what I see and hear, but I can't unravel and explain with confidence the contradictions in the hearts and minds of its people.
"Jaysh al Mahdi took me" he said. They kidnapped me and dragged me off to the mosque where they beat me."
"But you still have this job," I said, "even though they beat you for having it."
"I have to support my family. My Mom and Dad don't work. Everyone in Sadr City is very poor. My whole family lives there, except my brother. He went to Lebanon. So many terrorists and criminals live there. If we had money we would all move tomorrow, but I only make 300 dollars a month.
"I cry all the time," he said just before he setoff. "I wish I was outside Iraq where I would not have to be afraid."
I shook his hand. He returned to his post. And I felt useless. What could I do for this man?
What kind of country is this," Feris said to me in a trembling voice, "where people do this sort of thing to their own people?"
As I read your article, I realized there is a similarity between the Jaysh al Mahdi, the kidnapped Iraqi man, Mr. Feris and the KKK/ Nazi group that terrorized Americans in the first half of American history.
The KKK used basically the same terror tactics used today by groups like Jaysh al Mahdi. They murdered innocent people because they were Black, Jewish, Catholic, or sympathetic Christians.
They thought their cause was rightous and manipulated the words of the Bible to teach their ideology. Many of those who were recruited were people who were uneducated, socially inept and or needed a "cause" to believe in. They lacted self worth and by joining became empowered. Then there were those who joined out of fear from the KKK, family or friends.
A college history teacher told us his grandfather owned a small retail business and was threatened by the KKK. If he did not conform by silence or joining he and his family would suffer the consequents.
It took several years to wipe out the control of the KKK in those years. And, yet, they still exist in small numbers. Why do we think it will take only a few years to overcome the ideology of the jihadist and misguided religious fanatics of the Muslim countries?
Posted by: Sandy at August 15, 2007 03:37 PMI don't think anyone is suggesting that we can eradicate terrorism as a phenomenon.
I think they were, but thanks for your opinion.
What we can do is destroy the current school (Al-Qaeda-style terrorism) and make sure nobody else graduates.
Yeah? "Al-Quieda" style terrorism? Are you talking about ISI/AQI, specifically? How about their non - AQI salafist buddies, like IAI? Are we going to 'destroy' JAM? Are we destroying the car bombers, but not the shooters in the head? Or should we just, to quote another commenter here,
should surround Sadr City, drop leaflets on it, let the women and children out, and then level it.
?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, Erik, and assume you understand why this a) wouldn't work and b) would be wrong.
As long as the find is conducted on symbolic levels, some level of hypocrisy is going to be involved. Someone who's a terrorist to someone in Iraq is going to be shaking hands with us, rather than being killed.
I'm all for staying in Iraq long enough for killing anyone who would really try to kill US citizens even after we all left. That's my personal definition of a sustainable target set.
Posted by: glasnost at August 15, 2007 03:51 PMWhy do we think it will take only a few years to overcome the ideology of the jihadist and misguided religious fanatics of the Muslim countries?
Not sure anyone believes this can be done in a few years. Personally, I view it as a century long struggle with American troops staying in Iraq for at least 30 to 50 years, similar to Japan, Germany, South Korea, etc.
What can be accomplished in a few years is stabilizing Iraq, and training and equipping its police and army sufficiently to maintain internal security while discouraging outside interference from Iran, Syria, or other ne'er do wells.
Posted by: Dogwood at August 15, 2007 04:04 PM"If you really aren't a white supremacist, put the Wu-Tang symbol in a prominent place on your blog."
Wu-Tang clan ain't nuthin to fuck with.
Posted by: mikek at August 15, 2007 04:12 PMI was a little surprised that you were with that IA Bn.
The "War Eagles",
- current designation: 3-1-11 IA Bn in Adhamayah,
- formerly: 3-2-6 IA Bn in Sadr City
(the entire IA garrison there until removed in Feb07),
is one of the more questionable IA Bns in Baghdad...
Michael,
Incredible reporting ! Seems pretty grassroots to me. For all the folks that still don't get it, one more time........LEAVING NOW IS "NOT AN OPTION". Yeah, I know, Americans and Iraqi's alike are dying everyday at the hands of the various myriad of factions with varying objectives and goals. The war was not nearly as well planned and thought out as we (The U.S. Govt/Bush Administration) thought we did. And yes, it's a mess, and still I say we can't leave.
I heard someone say "It's not our war, It's not our problem. Men will continue to be evil and do evil. It's time for America to take care of America".
Guess what genius....IT IS OUR WAR !
"Freedom is not free" !
Ask yourselves, how long did it take, and how many American lives were lost before we (The American people) got our own freedom ? What about WW2 ? Do you know how many Americans died on D-Day alone ???
One main reason why we lost Vietnam (which folks love to compare this to) is because thanks to among other things (Anti-war protests that turned the tide of American sentiment, which basically castrated the "cohones" of the average American) we did not have the resolve to finish off the communists over there once and for all.
And what happened when we left Vietnam will happen in Iraq if we leave. (The deaths of hundreds of thousands of people)
Like it or not, "We are indeed the police of the world, period". It is our responsibility, it is our duty. THIS, is what makes us "different" from the rest of the world. If we leave now, the brave men and women who served and died will have died for nothing.
What do you say Michael ?
p.s. You will definately get a donation from me.
Posted by: Katdaddy at August 15, 2007 05:37 PMIts funny that folks talk about attacking the Islamist in Iraq. It is Islamist who are the strongest parties in Iraq. If we attacked them, then we would be attacking the very government we support.
Ron Paul had said it correctly, the best thing we can do is leave this country and fast. We need to bring Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Turkey and Syria to the table and let a pan-Muslim force take over peacekeeping in our place. The reasons are we will never have any Iraqi's trust and we can not afford to spend tax payers money and our children’s financial future on what is essentially a hole in the sand. Cheney was ever so right in 1994 when he said that to get rid of Saddam would end in a quagmire.
Folks, like Juan Cole who are knowledgeable of the region predicted we would end up with the result we see and not the cake walk promised by so many chicken hawks.
If we leave the Kurds out of the equation, we basically have 3 power centers vying for influence, the first are Sunni nationalist allied with former Baathest and foreign forces. Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Dawa party who are allied with Iran and the U.S. and are the main parties controlling the present government. The third power center is the Mahdi organization which is allied with Dawa and for the most part very nationalistic and not allied with Iran. It is this virulent nationalism which predisposes them to being very anti-American . The biggest losers in this war are secular Iraqis, Christians and other minority religions caught between Sunni and Shia strife.
Posted by: David R. at August 15, 2007 05:38 PMTerrorism = political violence. The switching of power from one set of thugs to another set in Iraq, or even a set of semi-thugs with some nice technocrats thrown in, like Ayad Alawi, (sp), is going to end political violence on the planet?
Way to put words in someone's mouth. I think the idea of "breaking the back of this pathology" means to progress from the business-as-usual of switching from one set of thugs to another, to a civil society ruled by law.
If enough people get that and are willing to learn how to do it, they can change their society, and it won't be run by thugs. If enough don't, then it won't happen. it is up to the Iraqis but that doesn't mean we throw them in at the deep end and tsk-tsk when they can't swim. It also doesn't mean that we sneer at them while they are figuring it out. (Insert analogies to the 13 Colonies, etc here.)
I think it's a realistic goal to help build societies which are resilient and resistent to being destabilized by terrorism, with the end goal being the elimination of this kind of violent political manipulation. It's like having an audacious goal of "ending world hunger" or "curing cancer." It's a huge idealistic goal but why not aim for it and do much good along the way?
Posted by: Yehudit at August 15, 2007 05:59 PMFolks, like Juan Cole who are knowledgeable of the region predicted we would end up with the result we see and not the cake walk promised by so many chicken hawks.
The reliability and character of Juan Cole.
Posted by: Yehudit at August 15, 2007 06:01 PMglasnost: "Al-Quieda" style terrorism? Are you talking about ISI/AQI...their non - AQI salafist buddies...? Are we going to 'destroy' JAM?
These acronyms are too much for a simpleton like me, so I'll put it in easier terms.
Let's kill or arrest vast numbers of Islamic extremists who want to attack Americans. Let's take their money. Let's threaten their supporters.
By killing, capturing, taking money from, and threatening supporters of Islamic terrorists based in the Middle East and Central Asia, we'll hopefully eradicate them eventually.
More easily than we can eradicate terrorism as a phenomenon, anyway.
Posted by: Edgar at August 15, 2007 06:09 PMGreat insight on a dicey situation.
My own suspicion is that the Sadrists are interested in choosing the time and place of their actions on the outpost.
Sadr is probably hedging his bet that the Congress and American people will demand a withdrawal, essentially doing the dirty work for Sadr and his Iranian allies.
He also realizes he is out matched when it comes to winning hearts and minds (i.e., intelligence conveyed to us from the citizens).
I believe Sadr is still in Iran.
Posted by: Captain America at August 15, 2007 06:09 PMYehudit,
At least Juan Cole and Dick Chaney(era 1994) where right about the war before it started.
And so where many more who are not Israeli-centric. It's hard not to deny the folks who were pushing the hardest for this war either have dual citizenship or should and the dispensationist crowd.
The reliability and character of Juan Cole.
Good thing he has been correct on so many other things to offset that list then, Yehudit.
A lot of people seem to forget or do not know that Juan Cole was originally a supporter of invading Iraq. You didn't include that in your list of things he was wrong about.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 15, 2007 06:31 PMThat was a good report Mr. Totten. I think it’s the best so far.
I agree with you analysis of Moqtada al Sadar and the JAM. They are a proxy of Iran. I would say that you have an infestation of criminals in the building beside you.
These people use taqiyya with skill to gain the upper hand. Or, as Master Sergeant Tyler says: “They act like our friends… It is a façade to an extent, yes. They get benefits from having a good relationship with us and will do and say anything to keep us on their side.”
You and the troops are dealing with skilled con-artists. You will have to take sophisticated steps to turn the tables. I am sure you and others can think of a plan.
Sooner or later Moqtada al Sadar must be neutralized. It would be best if it was done surreptitiously. I doubt that al Sadar can be “flipped” with money. The Iranians have plenty of money and are plenty close.
I believe that our guys will have to conduct intensive surveillance of al Sadar’s lieutenants. And, being that they are in close proximity and it should not be that hard of a problem.
Next, our guys will have to “flip” a few of al Sadar lieutenants. How that is done up to the military but it must be done and I don’t care how much deception is used to do so.
Then, al Sadar must have an accident, illness, or sudden death and said “flipped lieutenant” must take his place.
Once al Sadar is out of the way it will be necessary to find the Iranian operatives in Iraq and liquidate them one by one.
After that, any remaining loyalist to al Sadar must be flipped or neutralized. They are the ones who are doing the day to day terrorizing.
All of this will take time, skill and patience. But, I have faith in the US military and the job will be done.
Keep up the good work and tell the guys from the 82nd that they are doing a great job and to carry on.
Posted by: Ledger1 at August 15, 2007 06:36 PMDan,
Terrorists need to be labeled correctly. They are mere criminals.
I disagree with this considerably in that jihadi terrorists are barbarians, not criminals. Criminals accept your cultural norms and subvert them for their own gain. Barbarians reject your cultural norms and attempt to destroy them.
The language, announced intentions, and repeated actions of jihadi terrorists are those of barbarians attempting to destroy western culture, not criminals trying to profit from its weaknesses. The nature of of situation does need to be correctly addressed. I do not think you are doing so.
Why are you including these people in your definition of civilization? They surely do not return the favor.
Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell at August 15, 2007 06:44 PMReliapundit,
You are banned from posting here, as I told you before. It amazes me, truly, that you barged right back in here and repeated the libel that got you banned in the first place.
I will continue to delete all your posts, and I will not answer your despicable accusations.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 15, 2007 06:45 PMJoe Smithers: However this information WILL kill american soldiers in that you have just leaked important intel to the enemy
Everything I published was ON THE RECORD information that Military Intelligence knew would be published.
I also have off-the-record information that I did not publish.
So you can calm down now.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 15, 2007 07:13 PMDan -
Terrorists need to be labeled correctly. They are mere criminals. If we overhype them and their influence, that overhyping might just come to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The best counter to the use of such methods is to win the hearts of those who terrorists hope to recruit.
So, you're trying to tell us that the best way to fight the 'crime' of terrorism is to 'win the hearts and minds' of those the criminals might hope to recruit, and to refrain from using force against them.
Has this theory of crime/terrorism prevention ever, in the history of man, been proven to work? As far as I know, it has been tested many times and it has always caused a rise in terrorism and/or crime. This theory has been proven wrong so many times that promoting it is now the equivalent of the worst kind of quackery, like prescribing a high salt diet to cure high blood pressure. It's like you almost want the problem to get worse.
Like Marxism, Fascism, and other failed attempts to gain political power by 'helping the oppressed', your theory belongs in the trash heap of history.
Posted by: mary at August 15, 2007 07:21 PMGood thing he has been correct on so many other things to offset that list then...
Juan Cole is a Saudi quisling who says what his wahhabi handlers want him to say.
Unless you think he was right when he suggested this:
By the way, Saud al-Faisal correctly points out that a key element in the current high price of petroleum is lack of refining capacity. Since the oil majors are not willing to build a new refinery, why not resolve the problem ourselves. Can't California do one of those fancy referendum items instructing the state to build a refinery? They could insist that its products meet California pollution standards. A refinery would cost $5 billion, but it might or might not be profitable in the medium term (petroleum prices could dip once it was completed), which is why the corporations are not building one. It is highly irresponsible, and hurting the world economy.
A state referendum to build a five-billion dollar refinery at the bidding of Saud al-Faisal?
Posted by: mary at August 15, 2007 07:40 PMGood thing he has been correct on so many other things to offset that list then, Yehudit.
Such as? Given the overwhelming evidence of his sheer nuttiness, whatever he is "correct" about can only be a coincidence. I mean, Dennis Kucinich might be correct about, say, eating healthy vegetables, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go to him for foreign policy.
A lot of people seem to forget or do not know that Juan Cole was originally a supporter of invading Iraq. You didn't include that in your list of things he was wrong about.
See above. I don't know what his reasons were, I have my own which I developed over time as I paid attention to the issue. There are many honorable fact-based reasons to be either for or against the war.
Juan Cole is a conspiracy-mongering intellectually irresponsible subpar academic. I don't respect him because of everything I know about him, so I don't care whether he supported the war and then changed his mind, or what his reasons were.
Posted by: Yehudit at August 15, 2007 08:05 PMMichael, is this guy using revolving IP addresses or what?
Posted by: Yehudit at August 15, 2007 08:06 PMA state referendum to build a five-billion dollar refinery at the bidding of Saud al-Faisal?
Sorry, where did al-Faisal request a refinery?
Such as? Given the overwhelming evidence of his sheer nuttiness, whatever he is "correct" about can only be a coincidence.
Just off the top of my head - the consequences of under-resourcing of the occupation, the threat of the militias, and warning about the influence of al Sadr. Those were all things that Cole reported and predicted before many others.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 15, 2007 08:53 PMDummies believe the reason why we invaded Iraq was Saddam’s WMDs. Surprise! The real issue is the threat posed by Syria, Iran, Iraq and the Islamic terrorist manifestation called Al Qaeda.
After 9/11, Saddam believed the “oil for food” fraud would stop the invasion because of the financial bribes in France, Germany and Russia. He was wrong.
Iran’s potential nuclear capability has been long forecasted. Iran and Syria have been the major source of terrorism directed at Israel. Syria channeled Iran’s terrorism through a cooperating Iraq. Al Qaeda has been a willing partner in support of the efforts to terrorize Israel, as has Saddam in Iraq. We now have Iran surrounded by our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. And Syria is under heavy scrutiny. Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq.
Syria and Iran are not dummies. They know the Democrats are supporting the terrorists by their criticism of Bush and the war in Iraq. The Democrats hope the dummies will not understand the real game plan in the Middle East so that they can embarrass George Bush!
Diplomacy doesn’t work with the Democrats. For they hope Bush fails in the Middle East so that they can regain power. Now that is a dumb political tactic that betrays our military. Even dummies understand that!
Posted by: Sherman at August 15, 2007 09:20 PMDummies believe the reason why we invaded Iraq was Saddam’s WMDs. Surprise! The real issue is the threat posed by Syria, Iran, Iraq and the Islamic terrorist manifestation called Al Qaeda.
After 9/11, Saddam believed the “oil for food” fraud would stop the invasion because of the financial bribes in France, Germany and Russia. He was wrong.
Iran’s potential nuclear capability has been long forecasted. Iran and Syria have been the major source of terrorism directed at Israel. Syria channeled Iran’s terrorism through a cooperating Iraq. Al Qaeda has been a willing partner in support of the efforts to terrorize Israel, as has Saddam in Iraq. We now have Iran surrounded by our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. And Syria is under heavy scrutiny. Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq.
Syria and Iran are not dummies. They know the Democrats are supporting the terrorists by their criticism of Bush and the war in Iraq. The Democrats hope the dummies will not understand the real game plan in the Middle East so that they can embarrass George Bush!
Diplomacy doesn’t work with the Democrats. For they hope Bush fails in the Middle East so that they can regain power. Now that is a dumb political tactic that betrays our military. Even dummies understand that!
Posted by: Sherman at August 15, 2007 09:21 PMMy impression after reading this is that Iran is dug in and prepared for the long haul.
The US military may not be able to win in totality, but can defeat the Iranians slowly and methodically.
The problem is the propoganda from the US, Europe, EU and the Arab world is all on the side of the extremists and murderers... JAM, Al Queda, thugs and criminals etc...
A) Do I have the right to support others doing dangerous work and dying if I'm not there myself?
B) The amount of treasure in life and money the US would invest in Iraq is astronomical... and for which it will get NO CREDIT, nothing back in return... the gov't after the fact couldn't even be pro American otherwise it would be rejected from the Arab and Muslim Leagues... and after we left external players would still infiltrate and murder in Iraq.....
It's sad how easy it is to destroy and hard it is to build.
In War it is a common theme that the only way to win a war and defeat your enemy is to cut off its head... And noone in the world is prepared to confront Iran anytime soon.
Mike
PS Sadr is the same guy that had the Shiite pro Western Cleric, who's father was 1 of the most beloeved sheiks in the last century, Al Khoei, brutally murdered after he came back to Iraq from Britain, (in exile under Saddam), to throngs of adoring Shias... He got away with that and the US was contemplating taking him out back then and chose not to... OOOOOPS.....
Posted by: Mike Nargizian at August 15, 2007 10:02 PMThe answer to how these Iraqis can support Sadr AND the Americans is found in your discussion with that man at the end of your report: FEAR. They don't really support Sadr, they fear him.
Americans need to wake up, there is no such thing as "moderate Islam" -- Islam is nothing but a 7th century tribal mafia that as you reported is about power & money. The only way terrorism is going to be defeated is the same way Nazism was defeated -- undo the ideology, undo Islam -- Visit undoislam.com for more.
Posted by: Candado at August 15, 2007 10:52 PMWhen we 1st went to war with Iraq, we were told by the government that, it was because Saddam Hussain had ties with Al Qaeda and that he had weapons of mass destruction. They said he used them (and showed video) against his own people.
Okay, I bought that. Now, no weapons of mass destruction have been found (although it's possible they were moved out of the country underground) and it's not clear if Saddam actually had ties to Al Qaeda or not.
But the goal was to remove Saddam Hussain from power to eliminate the threat to us and to free the people of Iraq.
I know everyone makes fun of Bush for standing on that deck with the "Mission Accomplished" sign behind him, and they have every right to. But, IMHO, the war was won, and the mission was accomplished (according to the stated goal) the day Saddam Hussain was hanged.
Then we should have done what we did do next. That is, stick around long enough to make sure the people of Iraq get a chance to freely elect new members to a new government. At this point, I think we should have made an assesment to the damage made in Iraq because of the war and cut a check to the new government for rebuilding purposes. Then we should've left.
What the new Iraqi government does with the money is there business. Our conscience could be clear. What they do in their government, what laws they pass, anything and everything they do would be none of our business. Even if it