Transterrestrial Musings

« Don't Know Much About The Constitution | Main | First Red Wine »

Counterproductive

Michael Yon reports that not only has Al Qaeda lost its war in Iraq, but that its attempts to foment a civil war have backfired on them. It may be that the incipient civil war there (which Yon was the first to note) is over before it really got started, and once again, the war opponents (who remain in denial about the enemy, and fantasize that this never was, and never would be, more than a civil war) are behind the curve. This possibility is buttressed by events like the Shia awakening.

Yon also has a much longer recent dispatch from Iraq.

[Update on Tuesday morning]

More good news from Iraq (and bad news for Al Qaeda, and those who continue to hope that the US loses):

...in order for the advances to be permanent, something else must take the place of U.S. kinetic operations. Solution? Concerned citizens. One reason for al Qaeda’s misadventure in Iraq is armed and concerned citizens. Many Somalians and Syrians have been in Haditha (close to the border) and elsewhere in Iraq, but between Baghdad and Arab Jabour:
“The al Qaeda that’s here is not guys … from Syria or Somalia. They are local people who grew up here,” Adgie said. “They were bad, bad teenagers who stole cars, and (with) the lure of fast money from al Qaeda … they joined al Qaeda, and they carry out al Qaeda’s bidding.”
These home-grown terrorists employed “ultra-violence” against their fellow villagers to “strike fear in their hearts,” the colonel explained. Coalition forces from the final phase of the U.S. troop surge streamed into the region earlier this summer.

“In early August, we started seeing the first of the concerned local citizens come forward,” Adgie said. “And they started providing us with just a lot of information on who the bad guys were.”

The “concerned citizen” movement was greatly bolstered last month, the colonel explained, when a retired brigadier general from Saddam Hussein’s former army encouraged more local people to assist the coalition effort.

“(He) decided, ‘Enough is enough. I’ll be the leader,’” Adgie said. “He stepped up, stepped out into the light of day and helped us recruit this concerned citizen organization.”

That organization has grown from 87 to 538 people in just seven weeks, the colonel explained, and its members provide crucial information.

“Al Qaeda operates under a veil of secrecy. No one knows who al Qaeda is,” Adgie said. “Well that’s no longer possible when the guy you went to high school with is a concerned citizen, and he can look you in the eye and say: ‘You’re al Qaeda.’”

Also, watch out for armed and dangerous grannies.

[Update on Wednesday morning]

As noted in comments by Leland, Orwell would be smiling grimly. "Killed enemy troops" have now been redefined by the press as "victims of war." Those brutal Americans. How dare they murder people who are attempting to kill them?

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 15, 2007 11:49 AM

Comments

Pfft. Like the shia and sunni need help with starting a civil war.

Posted by Adrasteia at October 15, 2007 06:27 PM

Pfft. Like the shia and sunni need help with starting a civil war.

Well, obviously it wasn't happening fast enough for Al Qaeda, or they wouldn't have bombed the Golden Mosque. But live on in your denial.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 15, 2007 06:54 PM

It may be that the incipient civil war there (which Yon was the first to note) is over before it really got started

Yon was certainly not the first to note the Iraqi civil war, which is neither incipient nor over before it started. For millions of Iraqi refugees, including one Omar Fadhil, the Iraqi civil war is all too real.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 15, 2007 09:59 PM

I jus'loves some peeple named muhammed! Wanna keep some in my bucket!

Sheesh.

Posted by Bogdaddy at October 15, 2007 11:31 PM

The aspect of this that interests me is the apathy that Americans have to it.

1) Liberals claim the war is lost, lost, lost! Unwinnable war, etc.
2) Liberals claim that although we may win, we won't really win because of X.

And now my prediction for the future:

3) We really do win. Al Queda really loses, and becomes a footnote in the history books (as in radical Muslims don't call themselves that anymore). Iraq gradually becomes a real democracy (like Germany), and the troops stay (like Germany).

4) (And the important point) No one will care. Jim Harris will still make wild claims which everyone will ignore. No one will look back at how silly all the liberals were or how far off their predicitons were. Liberals will stay liberal, conservatives will stay conservative.

So who really wins? The liberals - because in the end, all they want is to trash the other side, and they have gotten to do that in spades? The conservatives - because they were allowed to actually solve the problem, as they like to do? Who knows?

But my guess is, the Iraqis are the real winners in all this... at least that is my hope.

Posted by David Summers at October 16, 2007 10:13 AM

the Iraqis are the real winners in all this

Yeah, when the however million of them scattered around in the Iraqi diaspora do finally make it back. Something like that.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at October 16, 2007 01:16 PM

Mostly the ones who supported Saddam, the anti-Sunni Baathists, and the jihadi insurgents; and
they're exiled in Syria, and Jordan, where most
of the Sunni insurgents came from. The Saudis fund and equip many jihadis but don't let many in.

Posted by narciso at October 16, 2007 05:45 PM

No one will care. Jim Harris will still make wild claims which everyone will ignore.

It doesn't really have anything to do with me personally, but otherwise, this is not entirely off the mark. It has been said that in politics, if it doesn't happen on television, then it doesn't really happen at all. 80% of the voters get most of their news from television (although possibly that is changing). So politicians can to some extent ignore all of the news in the newspapers, and even on the Internet, and just take television as the definition of their reality.

It's clear that the big dream of the war boosters is that whatever bad news there is in Iraq simply won't appear on television. Or maybe won't appear very often. For all of the resentment about underplayed good news or overplayed bad news, they clearly take any underplayed bad news for granted. It's out of the sphere of voter reality. What is even more important than specific bad news is background facts that call the mission into question. News reporters, especially on television, are especially bad at explaining basic background. They would much rather talk about "breaking developments" and "penetrating investigations".

So on the one hand, it is not only true, but completely obvious that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is openly pro-Iranian and always has been. So is the rest of his party and the other major Shiite parties. But it is also a "wild claim" because it doesn't appear on television all that much. The White House never quite contradicts it (because they don't want to be caught in a straight lie), but they say and do things that just aren't consistent with this basic truth, so it leads people to believe the opposite. Of course, if Iran and Iraq are close allies, then it makes no sense to fight for Iraq and against Iran. But most of the voters --- the television audience --- are by and large oblivious. This is what the White House wants so that they can keep "winning".

It will all come crashing down onto the next president. Bush is willing to sell the car and burn the furniture to keep this charade going until January, 2009. And about a third of the voters will be furious with that next president for "losing" the Iraq war. The other two-thirds are already fed up, because even though TV news is extremely dumbed down, it has revealed enough.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 16, 2007 09:01 PM

Toast_n_tea is back!

Hey, great job in Burma. It's another feather in your cap, showing America how it's done.

Posted by Andy Freeman at October 16, 2007 10:16 PM

Burma is a real hell-hole, but in some ways it's better off than Iraq. And Burma did not cost America or the West in general a half-trillion dollars (and counting) to reach its present dysfunctional state. If anything, the world would be a better place if the White House did not consider Iraq to be a thousand times as important as Burma.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 16, 2007 10:35 PM

It's clear that the big dream of the war boosters is that whatever bad news there is in Iraq simply won't appear on television.

That's clear only to idiots. The big dream of those of us who support the effort to defeat Islamism is that the war simply be reported fairly, good and bad.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 17, 2007 06:01 AM

From Glenn's site:

As violence falls in Iraq, cemetery workers feel the pinch

Besides Glenn's punditry, I found it interesting that this had to be included:

Even with less violence, many of those buried here are victims of the war, and the tragedy of each loss offers a counterpoint to workers' worries about money.

On a recent day, after the ritual washing, four male relatives carried a coffin containing the scorched and torn body of Mohammed Hazim , 33. Three women trailed, weeping.

Hazim, a member of the radical Mahdi Army militia, had been killed in a U.S. attack in Diyala province, his brother, Ali, said.

"Death to infidel America and the agent Iraqi government," the family chanted again and again.

At the shrine, security guards stopped the procession to check the coffin for explosives before allowing the men to take it inside. Later, at the grave, the men cried and the three women fell to their knees shrieking and flinging fistfuls of sand into their hair, a gesture of extreme grief.

Note how "victim of war" is now defined.

Posted by Leland at October 17, 2007 06:50 AM

The big dream of those of us who support the effort to defeat Islamism is that the war simply be reported fairly, good and bad.

Actually, whether the good" and "bad" news are simply in a fair ratio is not the biggest structural problem with the news. There is a lot of basic background that isn't really "bad" news, except that it shows quite clearly that the leaders fight the war on fraudulent terms. An honest war on Islamism would be a very good plan, but it is not what they are doing. TV news does not explain this background very well at all, nor do the war boosters want it to, partly because they have trouble accepting it themselves.

Again, one main example is the openly pro-Iranian alignment of the Iraqi government. Every Shiite Iraqi in charge has Iranian connections. This isn't "bad" news or even news at all, but it certainly isn't good news. Since our leaders declared Iraq an ally and Iran an enemy, they want to score touchdowns in both end zones at once. Absolutely, the Iraq war boosters just don't want to know.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 17, 2007 07:49 AM

An honest war on Islamism would be a very good plan, but it is not what they are doing.

Good thing too, since Islamism isn't the problem, but radicals are. It is also not the goal in Iraq. We have accomplished so much since we've been there, yet we have to dig into Internet reports to get the news of what we have accomplished.

Every Shiite Iraqi in charge has Iranian connections.

So what? We're not in Iraq to fight Iran. We're in Iraq to help the people, and we are succeeding in doing just that. As for those thousands that left, maybe if the news was more fair as to their coverage, more would come back. You of course will claim other reasons, but its all a wash anyway. Results on scene show us improving life and introducing liberty and economic freedom. If we can continue that, the rest of the region will have to follow. Prosperity breeds prosperity when allowed by those that run the country

Posted by Mac at October 17, 2007 08:30 AM

Harris misunderstands.

We have lots of folks telling us that they'd do better. However, they never seem to actually do better. Burma is just another example.

Posted by Andy Freeman at October 17, 2007 08:37 AM

We're not in Iraq to fight Iran.

Maybe not, but they claim they are. They say that Iran has "infiltrated". They just won't admit that this infiltration is at the top.

We have accomplished so much since we've been there

Yeah, there have been a lot of touchdowns at both ends.

As for those thousands that left

There are millions of refugees, not thousands.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 17, 2007 08:44 AM

We're not in Iraq to fight Iran.

Maybe not, but they claim they are. They say that Iran has "infiltrated". They just won't admit that this infiltration is at the top.

They? The infamous they...

Yeah, there have been a lot of touchdowns at both ends.

As there were in last Sunday's Pats vs Cowboys game, but again, so what? We are winning and achieving our goals. Granted, its not as quickly as you personally want, but we're succeeding. I'm sorry that irritates you so much.

There are millions of refugees, not thousands.

Since you can't get to a million without reaching a thousand first...oh but that's right, you only see the big picture presented to you by the media because you have no ability to distill facts on your own. If the media would broadcast more of the peaceful good things, more of the refugees would see its safe to return. That's not going to happen, especially within the region, because the media interests are counterproductive to the goal.

Posted by Mac at October 17, 2007 10:03 AM

Again, one main example is the openly pro-Iranian alignment of the Iraqi government.

To try to show you the difference between your views and mine, the US politicians similarly did not have too much to say about the fact that German leaders after WWII were friendly to the Italians.

To put it simply, the troops will not be leaving completely for a "very long time", just like Germany. Iran won't matter, because we will be there to counterbalance their insanity. People will continue to die, but at a lower rate than before.

Iran will not change for a VERY long time - the wrong people have the guns, so those people will have to die natural deaths. The people they choose to replace themselves will likely be better, but not that much better - so those people also have to retire/die off. We are almost certainly looking at several generations before Iran becomes a pleasant place to live. Iraq will be OK in just a few years (my prediction), though it will probably be like Isreal - everyone hears about terrorists, and they never quite stop, but for the most part they are ignored.

It would be nice if Iran's regime would fall, but that is unlikely. Brutal regimes are the most stable, and the current goal of international politics is stability, not happiness. Iran will not be changed by internal or external forces for a long time. (Unless they force us to do it - but I doubt that they will).

Posted by David Summers at October 17, 2007 01:29 PM

The existing Persian Empire will fall when the money runs out. The money comes from oil exports.

Two lines of attack:

1. Reduce Persian oil production, by starving it of investment capital.

2. The reduction of Persian oil exports, by an increase in domestic demand.

3. Reduce spot price of oil, by increasing availability of alternatives. Coal to liquids for aircraft; electricity storage for ground applications.

The mullahcracy subsists on petrodollars. Once those dry up, the mullahcracy becomes a bunch of criminal gangs that can no longer afford to control the levers of the state.

Apres ca, le deluge.

Posted by MG at October 17, 2007 02:00 PM

Once those dry up, the mullahcracy becomes a bunch of criminal gangs

Sort of. See the rest of Africa - the bad parts. What you get is a bunch of criminals, killing and looting without anyone opposing them - because there are no resources worth the lives it would take to pacify the country.

In other words, even worse than the current situation for them. Only better for us, and only if we ignore them.

Posted by David Summers at October 17, 2007 03:31 PM

David Summers:

Precisely. But what business is it of ours - and why should we be worried? (By "ours" I mean the West.

We should be worried at the moment, because the enemy has oceans of money - enough to finance terrorism all over the world, finance research into nuclear arms, enough to spread their propaganda everywhere. Why do they have all that money? Because we are giving it to them, in exchange for oil.

The USA has spent half a trillion dollars - and thousands of lives - attacking a target that didn't have anything to do with the cause of the incident (9/11). They have been attacking the wrong target, because business interests in the USA have too much to lose by attacking the right target - Saudi Arabia - which would also have been MUCH easier.

What should we do now? Cut down the money tree. How do we do that? Conduct intensive research into alternative energy supplies, which would cut off the money supply by making Arab and Persian oil irrelevant - and even if we do everything, would cost a minute fraction of the cost of Iraq so far. And then, just to make sure the supply is cut off, confiscate all assets held by enemy citizens or companies in Western countries, lay a minefield in the Gulf, blow up all the pipelines leading out of the area - and let them see if they can eat their oil.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at October 19, 2007 03:20 AM

Post a comment