The Belgravia Dispatch: Another Battle for Baghdad?

April 17, 2006

Another Battle for Baghdad?

Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell at the State Department, said a crackdown in Baghdad was one of the few ways in which a fresh Iraqi government could bind the new national army and prove its mettle.
“They have to show they can liberate their own capital,” he said. “Baghdad is the key to stability in Iraq. It’s a chance for the new government to stand up and say, ‘Here we are’. They can’t do that if they are hunkered down in bunkers.”

The operation is likely to take place towards the end of the summer, giving the newly appointed government time to establish itself. If all goes to plan, US troop withdrawals could take place before the end of the year. In the absence of progress by then, the war may come to be seen by the American public as a lost cause.

There are 140,000 US troops in Iraq. Lieutenant-General John Vines, who stepped down as commander of ground forces in Iraq at the beginning of this year, said it was essential to reduce the numbers.

“There is an incredible amount of stress and I’m worried about it,” said Vines. He added that soldiers were on their third or fourth tours of duty in Iraq: “The war has been going on nearly as long as the second world war and we’re asking a lot of the forces...”

..The generals involved in planning the battle are architects of the “clear, hold and build” strategy in Iraq, designed to isolate insurgents from the population and prevent them regrouping in urban strongholds as soon as the military’s back is turned...

“It was not uncommon for the 1st Calvary Division to be engaged in intense urban combat in one part of the city, while just a few blocks away we had units replacing damaged infrastructure, helping to foster business growth or facilitating the development of local government,” Chiarelli said. [ed. note: This is basically an evocation of Charles Krulak's so-called 3-Block-War] The generals involved in planning the battle are architects of the “clear, hold and build” strategy in Iraq, designed to isolate insurgents from the population and prevent them regrouping in urban strongholds as soon as the military’s back is turned...

...Baghdad is a swirling mess of competing Sunni and Shi’ite militias and Al-Qaeda fighters, and the city has been sliding into chaos at an alarming rate. “My brother was killed by somebody who told us he was paid $10 for the job,” said a Baghdad victim of the violence. “A man met him in the street, pointed to my brother and said he was a bad guy and had to die. He never knew why.” Kidnappings have risen to 50 a day in Iraq. Abu Ali, whose 12-year-son was kidnapped in Baghdad last month, said he had received a demand for $250,000 for his release. “Sometimes they let me hear him begging or crying for me to help him,” he said. “At other times they threaten me and say his brothers will be next.” Anybody connected, however remotely, with the administration is seen as a target; 18 traffic police officers have been killed in the past two months. “They were simply doing their duty and trying to prevent traffic jams. There are no traffic lights,” said Major Hussein Khadem of the transport police. Residents have taken to carrying two ID cards and ostentatiously religious CDs because of fears of sectarian violence. “If you are stopped at a Shi’ite checkpoint, you have to show you have a Shi’ite name, and if it is a Sunni insurgent checkpoint, it is good to show that your name is Omar,” said a Baghdad resident who had recently obtained a new ID. [emphasis added]

Yes, Baghdad is a mess, and control over it needs to be re-asserted. Pity Don Rumsfeld will likely be at the helm of such a prospective operation, as that would significantly reduce our chances of success.

Posted by Gregory at April 17, 2006 03:58 AM | TrackBack (0)

Comments

I spend half my time reading comments from people like Wilkerson talking about what has to be done. Unfortunately, they appear to be saying it when what they say should be done is already actively being discussed or has already started. There are people like this everwhere who make or made their careers by moving around the edges picking up others ideas and pretending they are the authors.

Posted by: davod at April 17, 2006 05:22 AM | Permalink to this comment

"The operation is likely to take place towards the end of the summer"

Perfect timing for November's US elections, isn't it? Late enough that success can be carried by the echo chamber into November, but early enough to be buried under the usual fundamentalist bait (gay marriages, etc) before November if things go badly.

Posted by: anon at April 17, 2006 07:04 AM | Permalink to this comment

Perfect timing for November's US elections, isn't it?

Now see, that's the good news. Because it's possible that TSLOB obviates the (domestic political) need for an October Surprise over Persia.

I do wonder why, if everything seemed fine to Ralph Peters and the media started talking about "civil war" only because "the insurgency is waning," we need a big military operation to secure the Iraqi capital, but there's probably some hawkish logic by which it all fits together.

Posted by: Jim Henley at April 17, 2006 01:08 PM | Permalink to this comment

ah, I see you are back to your usual habit of pretending that the guy in the White House bears no responsibility for the Iraq mess. ....

btw, how would you propose that a city the size of Baghdad that has descended into sectarian chaos be "brought under control" (short of reviving Ariel Sharon and his Christian Phalangist allies to go all genocidal on certain Baghdad neighborhoods....?)

Posted by: p.lukasiak at April 17, 2006 01:37 PM | Permalink to this comment

Even a muder & bulldoze the corpses solution (a la Sharon) doesn't seem too promising to me, given the stories that it is uniformed police/soldiers/Interim Ministry/who knows gangs that are doing a lot of the assassinations and terrorism in Baghdad these days.

I mean, mudering and bulldozing non-uniformed people may not help the intranecine (or rather, intra-governmental?) civil war?

Posted by: Not2Hopeful at April 17, 2006 02:35 PM | Permalink to this comment

When it comes to murdering and bulldozing people in mass, the late Hafez Assad of Syria is by far the better example with his estamated 30,000 victims when he had the rebellious city of Hamma destroyed in the Summer 0f 1982 then Sharon with his around 500-1,000 victims killed by the Christian Phalangists at Chantila & Sabra refugee camps in Lebanon in Sept. 1982.
(I realize that we do not remember when the Bloody Wogs eh excuse me Natives slaughter each other as long as it does not "threaten our way of life" i.e. getting oil or whatever other raw material we need at the cheapest possible price; still thought we should keep the record straight about who has slaughtered the most people.)

Posted by: David All at April 18, 2006 04:47 PM | Permalink to this comment

David, I think you may have misposted -- it looks like you were looking for some thread about who has slaughtered the most people, not a thread about whether Baghdad could be brought under control, and whether reviving a genocidal solution a la Sharon would help.

Anyway, back to the topic -- to a certain extent, ethnic cleansing is already happening, and indeed, government involvement (a la Sharon murder & cover) is already (reportedly) happening as well, as witness the decapitated bodies found every day, and the fear of all uniformed people with guns. Ethnic displacement is (reportedly) growing.

Posted by: Not2Hopeful at April 18, 2006 04:57 PM | Permalink to this comment

Greg,

How do you feel about the slandering of Ariel Sharon that is taking place here?

Posted by: liberalhawk at April 18, 2006 06:38 PM | Permalink to this comment

[[In the absence of progress by then, the war may come to be seen by the American public as a lost cause.]]

"May come to be seen"?? That train has left the station.

Posted by: Lex at April 19, 2006 09:29 PM | Permalink to this comment

Lilberalhawk, nobody has slandered Sharon here.

But I'll do it.

Sharon as a military administrator was about as good as Rumsfeld.

There. That's slander!

Posted by: J Thomas at April 19, 2006 10:39 PM | Permalink to this comment

Not2Hopeful: No I have not mispost. Calling Sharon's actions in Lebanon and elsewhere, genocide is an gross obsencity verging on blood libel. That Sharon turn a blind eye to the Phalangist Militia Massacre in Sabra & Chantilla, which was retaliation for earlier Palestinian massacres of Christians was an indirect war crime, yes. Calling it genocide is as obsence as because of the My Lai Massacre calling all American troops in Vietnam, baby killers and war criminals!

Posted by: David All at April 20, 2006 03:21 PM | Permalink to this comment

So, David, do you think Sharon bulldoze and bury is a path the US military should adopt?

I have grave doubts that it would accomplish much except make the US a pariah across most of the world -- without actually accomplishing the hoped-for stability in Iraq.

Currently, I think that not very much of the ethnic cleansing can be reasonably laid at the door of the US military. I think that that is good, because, if we must lose the war on terror (and sometimes I think this administration is dedicating to losing the war on terror), I'd prefer not to simultaneously lose the propaganda war.

Posted by: Not2Hopeful at April 20, 2006 07:32 PM | Permalink to this comment

Not2hopeful, yes, by all means let's try to keep from being blamed for the ethnic cleansing, and maybe we can win the propaganda war.

A U.S. military source told Newsweek, “The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists. From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation.” Google "The salvador option".

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PAR20050112&articleId=360
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/archives/004189.html

Posted by: J Thomas at April 21, 2006 01:19 AM | Permalink to this comment