U.S. can’t defeat insurgency in western Iraq, Marine Corp. report says
SuzannePjam
Posts: 411
The fact that al-Qaeda is rising in popularity in western Iraq because of
George W's war is just outrageous. What a mess he's gotten us into.
Anbar picture grows clearer, and bleaker
U.S. can’t defeat insurgency in western Iraq, report says
The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military's mission in Anbar province.
The Marines recently filed an updated version of that assessment that stood by its conclusions and stated that as of mid-November, the problems in troubled Anbar province have not improved, a senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday. "The fundamental questions of lack of control, growth of the insurgency and criminality" remain the same, the official said.
The Marines' August memo, a copy of which was shared with The Washington Post, is far more bleak than some officials suggested when they described it in late summer. The report describes Iraq's Sunni minority as "embroiled in a daily fight for survival," fearful of "pogroms" by the Shiite majority and increasingly dependent on al-Qaeda in Iraq as its only hope against growing Iranian dominance across the capital.
True or not, the memo says, "from the Sunni perspective, their greatest fears have been realized: Iran controls Baghdad and Anbaris have been marginalized." Moreover, most Sunnis now believe it would be unwise to count on or help U.S. forces because they are seen as likely to leave the country before imposing stability.
Between al-Qaeda's violence, Iran's influence and an expected U.S. drawdown, "the social and political situation has deteriorated to a point" that U.S. and Iraqi troops "are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in al-Anbar," the assessment found. In Anbar province alone, at least 90 U.S. troops have died since Sept. 1.
The Post first reported on the memo's existence in September, as it was being circulated among military and national security officials. Several officials who read the report described its conclusions as grim.
But the contents have not previously been made public. Read as a complete assessment, it paints a stark portrait of a failed province and of the country's Sunnis -- once dominant under Saddam Hussein -- now desperate, fearful and impoverished. They have been increasingly abandoned by religious and political leaders who have been assassinated or who have fled to neighboring countries. And unlike Iraq's Shiite majority, or Kurdish groups in the north, the Sunnis are without oil and other natural resources. The report notes that illicit oil trading is providing millions of dollars to al-Qaeda while "official profits appear to feed Shiite cronyism in Baghdad."
As a result, "the potential for economic revival appears to be nonexistent" in Anbar, the report says. The Iraqi government, dominated by Iranian-backed Shiites, has not paid salaries for Anbar officials and Iraqi forces stationed there. Anbar's resources and its ability to impose order are depicted as limited at best.
‘Throughly corrupted’
"Despite the success of the December elections, nearly all government institutions from the village to provincial levels have disintegrated or have been thoroughly corrupted and infiltrated by Al Qaeda in Iraq," or a smattering of other insurgent groups, the report says.
The five-page report -- written by Col. Peter Devlin, a senior and seasoned military intelligence officer with the Marine Expeditionary Force -- is marked secret, for dissemination to U.S. and allied troops in Iraq only. It does not appear to have been made available to Iraqi national forces fighting alongside Americans.
The report, "State of the Insurgency in Al-Anbar," focuses on conditions in the province that is home to 1.25 million Iraqis, most of whom live in violence-ridden towns such as Fallujah, Haditha, Hit, Qaim and Ramadi.
Devlin wrote that attacks on civilians rose 57 percent between February and August of this year. "Although it is likely that attack levels have peaked, the steady rise in attacks from mid-2003 to 2006 indicates a clear failure to defeat the insurgency in al-Anbar."
Devlin suggested that without the deployment of an additional U.S. military division -- 15,000 to 20,000 troops -- plus billions of dollars in aid to the province, "there is nothing" U.S. troops "can do to influence" the insurgency.
He described al-Qaeda in Iraq as the "dominate organization of influence in al-Anbar," surpassing all other groups, the Iraqi government and U.S. troops "in its ability to control the day-to-day life of the average Sunni."
Al-Qaeda itself, now an "integral part of the social fabric of western Iraq," has become so entrenched, autonomous and financially independent that U.S. forces no longer have the option "for a decapitating strike that would cripple the organization," the report says. That is why, it says, the death of al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al- Zarqawi in June "had so little impact on the structure and capabilities of al-Qaeda," especially in Anbar province.
The senior intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of his work, said yesterday that he largely agrees with Devlin's assessment, except that he thinks it overstates the role of al-Qaeda in the province. "We argue that it is a major element in Anbar, but it is not the largest or most dominant group," he said.
Sunni state?
In a final section of the report, titled "Way Ahead," Devlin outlined several possibilities for bringing stability to the area, including establishing a Sunni state in Anbar, creating a local paramilitary force to protect Sunnis and to offset Iranian influence, shifting local budget controls, and strengthening a committed Iraqi police force that has "proven remarkably resilient in most areas."
Devlin ended the assessment by saying that while violence has surged, the presence of U.S. troops in Anbar has had "a real suppressive effect on the insurgency." He said the suffering of "Anbar's citizens undoubtedly would be far worse now if it was not for the very effective efforts" of U.S. forces.
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
George W's war is just outrageous. What a mess he's gotten us into.
Anbar picture grows clearer, and bleaker
U.S. can’t defeat insurgency in western Iraq, report says
The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military's mission in Anbar province.
The Marines recently filed an updated version of that assessment that stood by its conclusions and stated that as of mid-November, the problems in troubled Anbar province have not improved, a senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday. "The fundamental questions of lack of control, growth of the insurgency and criminality" remain the same, the official said.
The Marines' August memo, a copy of which was shared with The Washington Post, is far more bleak than some officials suggested when they described it in late summer. The report describes Iraq's Sunni minority as "embroiled in a daily fight for survival," fearful of "pogroms" by the Shiite majority and increasingly dependent on al-Qaeda in Iraq as its only hope against growing Iranian dominance across the capital.
True or not, the memo says, "from the Sunni perspective, their greatest fears have been realized: Iran controls Baghdad and Anbaris have been marginalized." Moreover, most Sunnis now believe it would be unwise to count on or help U.S. forces because they are seen as likely to leave the country before imposing stability.
Between al-Qaeda's violence, Iran's influence and an expected U.S. drawdown, "the social and political situation has deteriorated to a point" that U.S. and Iraqi troops "are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in al-Anbar," the assessment found. In Anbar province alone, at least 90 U.S. troops have died since Sept. 1.
The Post first reported on the memo's existence in September, as it was being circulated among military and national security officials. Several officials who read the report described its conclusions as grim.
But the contents have not previously been made public. Read as a complete assessment, it paints a stark portrait of a failed province and of the country's Sunnis -- once dominant under Saddam Hussein -- now desperate, fearful and impoverished. They have been increasingly abandoned by religious and political leaders who have been assassinated or who have fled to neighboring countries. And unlike Iraq's Shiite majority, or Kurdish groups in the north, the Sunnis are without oil and other natural resources. The report notes that illicit oil trading is providing millions of dollars to al-Qaeda while "official profits appear to feed Shiite cronyism in Baghdad."
As a result, "the potential for economic revival appears to be nonexistent" in Anbar, the report says. The Iraqi government, dominated by Iranian-backed Shiites, has not paid salaries for Anbar officials and Iraqi forces stationed there. Anbar's resources and its ability to impose order are depicted as limited at best.
‘Throughly corrupted’
"Despite the success of the December elections, nearly all government institutions from the village to provincial levels have disintegrated or have been thoroughly corrupted and infiltrated by Al Qaeda in Iraq," or a smattering of other insurgent groups, the report says.
The five-page report -- written by Col. Peter Devlin, a senior and seasoned military intelligence officer with the Marine Expeditionary Force -- is marked secret, for dissemination to U.S. and allied troops in Iraq only. It does not appear to have been made available to Iraqi national forces fighting alongside Americans.
The report, "State of the Insurgency in Al-Anbar," focuses on conditions in the province that is home to 1.25 million Iraqis, most of whom live in violence-ridden towns such as Fallujah, Haditha, Hit, Qaim and Ramadi.
Devlin wrote that attacks on civilians rose 57 percent between February and August of this year. "Although it is likely that attack levels have peaked, the steady rise in attacks from mid-2003 to 2006 indicates a clear failure to defeat the insurgency in al-Anbar."
Devlin suggested that without the deployment of an additional U.S. military division -- 15,000 to 20,000 troops -- plus billions of dollars in aid to the province, "there is nothing" U.S. troops "can do to influence" the insurgency.
He described al-Qaeda in Iraq as the "dominate organization of influence in al-Anbar," surpassing all other groups, the Iraqi government and U.S. troops "in its ability to control the day-to-day life of the average Sunni."
Al-Qaeda itself, now an "integral part of the social fabric of western Iraq," has become so entrenched, autonomous and financially independent that U.S. forces no longer have the option "for a decapitating strike that would cripple the organization," the report says. That is why, it says, the death of al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al- Zarqawi in June "had so little impact on the structure and capabilities of al-Qaeda," especially in Anbar province.
The senior intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of his work, said yesterday that he largely agrees with Devlin's assessment, except that he thinks it overstates the role of al-Qaeda in the province. "We argue that it is a major element in Anbar, but it is not the largest or most dominant group," he said.
Sunni state?
In a final section of the report, titled "Way Ahead," Devlin outlined several possibilities for bringing stability to the area, including establishing a Sunni state in Anbar, creating a local paramilitary force to protect Sunnis and to offset Iranian influence, shifting local budget controls, and strengthening a committed Iraqi police force that has "proven remarkably resilient in most areas."
Devlin ended the assessment by saying that while violence has surged, the presence of U.S. troops in Anbar has had "a real suppressive effect on the insurgency." He said the suffering of "Anbar's citizens undoubtedly would be far worse now if it was not for the very effective efforts" of U.S. forces.
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
"Where there is sacrifice there is someone collecting the sacrificial offerings."-- Ayn Rand
"Some of my friends sit around every evening and they worry about the times ahead,
But everybody else is overwhelmed by indifference and the promise of an early bed..."-- Elvis Costello
"Some of my friends sit around every evening and they worry about the times ahead,
But everybody else is overwhelmed by indifference and the promise of an early bed..."-- Elvis Costello
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
when it comes from the military personnel on the ground... awkward silence...
cmon neo-cons, i thought it was only the lefties who were cowards and didnt think we could "win"?
el anbar is a mostly sunni area. the shitte government isnt paying any salaries. looks like they are doing whatever is needed to survive. el-queda in Iraq is the only presense in the area. they arent posing a threat to americans or whoever. they are just trying to survive. thats just how I see it. of course I view anything with el queda in it as the enemy but damn what else can they do? until sunnis and shittes settle their differences, shit like this will continue.
I have never been there so its hard for me or any of us to prove any points. we can only hold opinons.
im more concerned about the innocent people living out in these desert areas. they are just trying to live and survive. one good thing he said is...
"the presence of U.S. troops in Anbar has had "a real suppressive effect on the insurgency." He said the suffering of "Anbar's citizens undoubtedly would be far worse now if it was not for the very effective efforts" of U.S. forces."
this whole winning and losing shit doesnt make any sense. from bush saying we need to win to liberals saying we lost.
we need to defeat the people who are conspiring to fly planes into the capitol building or setting off a dirty bomb in london. or blow up a car in a packed market in Iraq because they are shiite or sunni. not the ones who are trying to eat
I don't see the difference in say 100,000 and 130,000 when there's numbers on the ground. I'm sure there's specialists that are needed but surely some of the ground troops can be brought home.
I'm an Aussie so I'm pretty much in the same boat and I do believe that " We fucked it we fix it". But it seems the current admin go by the motto " A violent means with no end"
Actually, I would disagree...I'm no expert so of course I don't know how to get it done, but 'we' can most certainly win. America can't win the way it's currently fighting though.
No shit!
The myth of the Iraqi police and Army. Out of those 600,000 or so that are trained by the US how many do think are trustworthy. Id say about half. That means that you have created a whole army that is willing to betray you at any moment.An example is this past week when they found bombs planted on the Iraqi presidents car. they have moles all over, a big reason for the lack of security.
I say this because to this day, here in Puerto Rico the federales dont inlcude the local police in anything because they now that they cant be trusted. And that is after 100 years of occupation and giving us citizenship and all the goodies.
Any kind of force cannot be trusted. Not one,they all need policing themselves, if you leave a group of people with the power over a group of others with no one to watch over them sooner rather later they will be exploited. Your from Puerto Rico, my parents fled Belfast at the height of the troubles there.
Do you believe the situation there could get any worse? About 50 people dying a day. I don't think so. But even if it did that's Iraq's decision to make. If they fuck up again I'm sure the US would be back in a flash. It'll probably be Jeb Bush by then.
so you think you're better able to gauge our chances of winning than the marines who are currently on the ground in iraq?
Maybe he just wants everyone to know we have the weapons to kill everyone in Iraq.. so theoretically we CAN "win".
Seriously... would you?
Fight, that is. If there were tanks and shit in your neighborhood... tanks and shit from the U.N... would you stnd there like an idiot and face them with your .22 Ruger in hand? Fuck NO. You'd pretend to be their friend and all and when they aren't looking... you'd roll a grenade into their tent while they're sleeping, right?
...
And I guess our Revolutionary forefathers were pussies for not standing upright in the fields to fight the militarily superior British in 1774... pussies for not 'Fighting Fair'. No such thing as a 'Fair Fight'.
Hail, Hail!!!
Your not really comparing insurgents who kill more of their own people than coalition forces, to the minutemen are you? Cause that would be stupid.
This is clearly the result of the War being fought by the Civilians in suits in Washington, rather than by the Commanders in uniforms in Baghdad. Bush/Rumfeld heard the requests for greater numbers and ingnored them... they only heard from the Commanders in the Pentagon who said current troop levels were adequate.
It is the SAME thing that happened in Viet Nam. Maybe, if Bush had the Viet Nam experience under his belt... he would have adhered to the Powell(/Swartzkopf) Doctrine of warfare that worked so brilliantly in 1991.
Hail, Hail!!!
that comparison is vailid.
I'm saying that there is a way to everything.
There is no "can't"....well...in most instances.
In the type of warfare... it is a valid comparison.
Revolutionary Fighters did not march on the battlefield and trade volleys with the far superior British Army. To do so would have been idiotic and fatal.
They fought using ambushes and tactics that were not considered to be 'Fair' in those days. When you are faced with much greater forces, you adopt unconventional methods to defeat them... in 1774... refusing to stand in uniform and trade volleys was considered 'cowardice' means by most militaries of the time. So, yeah... the Minutemen fought the better trainned, better equipped British Army using 'chicken-shit' tactics... But... hey... it worked.
Read your History Books.
Hail, Hail!!!
You know how to 'Win' over there?
SECURITY.
Don't listen to Bush/Rumsfeld bullshit about 300,000 Iraqi Security Forces... they are worthless. It is just a bullshit number defined by Shi'ite death squad and former Republican Guard assholes.
We need 250,000 to 300,000 QUALITY boots on the ground over there. I don't care where we get them from... NATO or Arab Nations or Stateside. We need those overwhelming QUALITY forces.
Declare Martial Law til the firefighting subsides. Seal the borders. Put a curfew in place. Shoot to kill orders.
When the live fire is reduced... weed through the 300,000 Iraqi forces. Move the trainning to an outside NATO Nation, such as Turkey. When they are trainned, return them to Iraq for 'light duty'... guarding assets, providing security around rebuilding efforts. The ones that don't pass... give them civilian jobs... building infrastructure, buildings, homes... incarceration is not an option.
Tell the fucking Iraqi Government to kick it into gear and quit sitting there with their thumbs up their asses. Find political common ground and come up with the political solution that involved all Iraqis.
It's a long term project... but, it begins with security. If we cannot guarantee security... why even bother?
Hail, Hail!!!
After all this loss there is no "win" ... dont you get that by now?
but is it worth what it would take to do so?
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
"Crush Them"? Aren't we there to 'Save Them'?
Hail, Hail!!!
I don't see how we're under any obligation to save people who are trying to kill our troops.
War isn't pleasant. You can't be a nice guy and fight a war. Innocent people are going to die, and that's that. This is the same problem I have with inner city violence. If people want it to stop, they should turn in the insurgents...turn their backs on them and refuse to accept their behavior. Instead, they do nothing...but they come screaming and crying if an American missile goes astray and blows up a bunch of "innocents"
If you know people who are trying to kill your liberators, and you do nothing, you are not innocent.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
That's a good question.
Unsure.
Do you write TV ads for political campaigns?
What if the reason why they are trying to kill our troops is because are troops are over there? If we're going to kill 'em all... why are we there in the first place?
And if they are killing each other... whose side to we choose?
...
It's a fucking mess... a complex problem that we thought we could solve with a simple solution. That isn't the case. The complex problems require complex solutions. I think that was the lesson we were supposed to have learned from Viet Nam.
Hail, Hail!!!
Hail, Hail!!!
Yeah what a choice, turn your back to the insurgency and have your family kidnapped and slaughtered or take a chance of becoming "collatoral damage" they really have it good dont they? Why dont you get go down to your roughest hood and try stop a crime, see how far you get. The gall of some people, these innocent people are dying everyday b/c of OUR actions and you're trying to blame them? Unbelievable!
Wouldnt be hard in ohio (or any red state) ..."vote republican and you'll go to heaven" funny that's almost like a jihad isnt it?
Yep.
You miss my point. I don't have to go down to the inner city to stop a crime. There are already people there who know the people doing the crime...yet when it's time to man up and get rid of their asses, they lack the spine.
These same people will cry about how evil America is because their house gets blown up, or their family members killed. well, maybe if they stood up to their own and demanded change, things would be different. If their own people take them out, it only proves my point yet again.
If you know what's up and you do nothing, you get what you deserve.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader