Iraq Special Intelligence Estimate

[oboe]

I found this summary of the situation in Iraq on TomPaine.com and to me it seems quite lucid.    I note too, that Gen Patraeus said recently that "there is no military solution to Iraq"

• The vast majority of the violence in Iraq is sectarian in nature and involves a multifaceted civil war mostly pitting Sunnis against Shias. However, the violence also entails secular Sunnis fighting Sunni extremists linked to al-Qaida and secular Shias battling Shia extremists...The only thing the various factions share is unflinching opposition to U.S. occupation. But the notion that there is a monolithic group of “insurgents” or “enemy” falls far wide of the mark.
• U.S. strategy in Iraq is based on the false assumptions that the “people” and the “insurgents” in Iraq are two distinct and opposing groups, and that U.S. and Iraqi forces will be able to “clear” the insurgents and “hold” the people. In fact, the resistance will be suppressed in one area, only to re-emerge somewhere else (the attempt to suppress is appropriately called “Operation Whack-a-Mole”). It goes against virtually all historical precedent to suppose that an unwelcome invader with 150,000 troops—and Iraqi security forces that the NIE judged to be “persistently weak”—can occupy and subdue a large country with a population of 26 million and long porous borders.
• The United States does not have enough military forces on the ground in Iraq to provide effective control of the cities and key regions to prevent violence and destroy insurgent infrastructure. Moreover, the U.S. lacks sufficient soldiers and marines in its current globally deployed force to provide sustained reinforcements. And absent is the political will to bring back the draft to obtain the number of troops required to get better control of the situation on the ground in Iraq. Even with a draft, the United States would require two years at a minimum to train and organize the new units for any mission in Iraq. Given these facts, there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq.
• A surge in U.S. troops in specific areas, specifically Baghdad, may bring more than a momentary lessening in the violence, but it will not end the fighting. In fact, this concentrated surge will enable insurgent forces in other areas of the country to expand their operations and control. A de facto partitioning of Iraq is under way. Since the surge started we have already seen an increase in violence in the Kurdish controlled north.
• At current casualty rates, twelve more months will mean at least 1,000 additional U.S. troops killed and 18 more months will bring at least 1,500—not to mention Iraqis killed, and thousands upon thousands seriously wounded. The various Iraqi insurgent groups will probably fade into the woodwork for a while, but at a time and place of their choosing they will surely be back, in force. In the end, aside from the deaths, nothing lasting will have been achieved.
• Senior U.S. civilian and military officials still don’t get it. “They can’t beat us in a stand-up fight,” bragged our vice president just two months ago, echoing recent words of a U.S. Army colonel in Iraq. This completely misses the point, and calls to mind the sad month of April 1975, when Col. Harry Summers was sent to negotiate with a North Vietnamese colonel the terms of American withdrawal from Vietnam. Summers reported the following exchange: “’You know, you never beat us on the battlefield,’ I said to Colonel Tu, my North Vietnamese counterpart. ‘That may be so,’ he said, ‘but it is also irrelevant.’”
• The critical parts of Iraq—Baghdad and southern Iraq—will be under the control of the Shia. Iran, in turn, will try to expand its aid and influence among both the Shia populace and the secular Sunnis.
• The U.S. occupation continues to be a windfall for terrorist recruiters. An NIE of April 2006 on terrorism noted that the war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists whose numbers, it said, may be increasing faster than the U.S. can reduce the threat. There is wide consensus among experienced observers that the war in Iraq makes it immensely more difficult to deal with the real threat of international terrorism.
• Violence in Iraq, at least for the mid-term, will continue regardless of the U.S. presence. Once a U.S. departure is under way there is an increased likelihood that the Sunnis and Shias will move toward a political accommodation of some sort since at that point neither can count on the United States to fight on their side. The only thing in doubt is the timing of the U.S. departure, and whether it can be accomplished without the massacres the British experienced trying to extricate themselves from earlier expeditions into Iraq. The lack of a substantial U.S. military presence in Iraq will have the counterintuitive effect of increasing the likelihood that neighboring countries will be more willing to take steps to help reduce the violence in Iraq.

[Toad]

"There is no military solution to Iraq"

Sounds impressive.

If this is from Petraeus' March 8 press conference, the whole in context quote would be this one.

Second question:  You said that the host country can determine who are the reconcilable groups.  But everybody should be under the supremacy of law, and all military activities should be cancelled.  So how are these people going to be part of the solution?

         GEN. PETRAEUS:  First of all, there -- you asked about detention facilities, coalition and Iraqi.  And in fact there is an effort ongoing -- in fact, it's part of the rule of law effort that I mentioned -- that will assist Iraq and the Ministry of Justice in expanding its detention facilities.

         The fact is that Iraq has a very, very small capacity in that regard, compared with any of the other states in the region or even just to a state of the United States.  And so the assessment of leaders and so forth is that there -- especially as you have a security crackdown that does target these extremists, that a number of them need to be detained and to be put into the correction system. And so that is an effort -- there is an effort ongoing to do that, just as there is an effort ongoing to expand the U.S. capacity for detention.  

         And in fact, in one of the locations -- in fact, several of the coalitions -- we are actually helping to train Iraqi corrections officers.  In some cases, they are training alongside our soldiers and will transition to take over some of the detention facilities you can see, again, in the years hence.

         So there's a short-term capacity increase effort ongoing, and there's also a longer-term plan that has been being executed and will also be reinforced to increase the Iraqi capacity over time as well.

         With respect, again, to the -- you know, the idea of the reconcilables and the irreconcilables, this is something in which the Iraqi government obviously has the lead.  It is something that they have sought to -- in some cases, to reach out.  And I think, again, that any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security, for all the reasons that I stated in my remarks, but it is not sufficient.  

        A political resolution of various differences, of this legislation, of various senses that people do not have a stake in the success of the new Iraq, and so forth, that is crucial.  That is what will determine in the long run the success of this effort.  And again, that clearly has to include talking with and eventually reconciling differences with some of those who have felt that the new Iraq did not have a place for them, whereas I think, again, Prime Minister Maliki clearly believes that it does, and I think that his actions will demonstrate that, along with the other ministers.

         I mean, if you look at the hydrocarbon law is an enormous statement that the oil that is in certain regions, the wealth from that, the revenue from it, will be shared with all Iraqis.  It is a national resource, it states that.  And that, arguably, is a very significant statement, compromise even, because some could have tried to have kept that to a particular region rather than sharing it with all.  And I think that kind of legislation is what the Iraqi people are looking for.  That is also, for what it's worth, what people in the United States are looking for, to see, again, is there the will, the determination to come to grips with these very tough issues that makes our enormous effort of the coalition members to help them achieve the security in which that kind of effort can go forward more successfully than when they're literally consumed with concerns about the security challenges of the moment.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10475&Itemid=128


Not exactly the same picture as the short quote presents, is it?

[Ripsnort]

Wow, that was some professional journalism by CNN, to snip out the parts they wanted to hear.

[john9001]

you can't "end the war" by running away from it.

[Sandman]

What war?

Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. - George W. Bush, May 1, 2003.

[Eagler]

"The U.S. occupation continues to be a windfall for terrorist recruiters. An NIE of April 2006 on terrorism noted that the war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists"

sounds good to me...

" whose numbers, it said, may be increasing faster than the U.S. can reduce the threat. There is wide consensus among experienced observers that the war in Iraq makes it immensely more difficult to deal with the real threat of international terrorism."

I don't believe their numbers are growing faster than we can kill them..we may just have to come up with better extermination methods. Ever put out a grease fire in your grill with your water bottle? It requires alot of water...an overpowering amount.
Seems to me they, the terrorists, are too busy in Iraq to worry much about the rest of the world.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Sandman
What war?

Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. - George W. Bush, May 1, 2003.

Against Iraq they have .. we are now fighting Iran in Iraq if you haven't figured that out yet.

[john9001]

Originally posted by Sandman
What war?
 

the "war" the democrats want to end , cut off funding and bring home the troops, that "war", unless they are talking about bringing the troops home from germany. the war with germany has been over for about 60 years and we still have troops there protecting europe from somebody.

[storch]

Originally posted by Eagler
"The U.S. occupation continues to be a windfall for terrorist recruiters. An NIE of April 2006 on terrorism noted that the war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists"

sounds good to me...

" whose numbers, it said, may be increasing faster than the U.S. can reduce the threat. There is wide consensus among experienced observers that the war in Iraq makes it immensely more difficult to deal with the real threat of international terrorism."

I don't believe their numbers are growing faster than we can kill them..we may just have to come up with better extermination methods. Ever put out a grease fire in your grill with your water bottle? It requires alot of water...an overpowering amount.
Seems to me they, the terrorists, are too busy in Iraq to worry much about the rest of the world.

the beauty of Iraq is the terrorists are there and not here.  the democrats fail to understand this.  then again the democrats fail to grasp reality on any level.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Eagler
Against Iraq they have .. we are now fighting Iran in Iraq if you haven't figured that out yet.

It's your story. Make it as big as you want.

[Hap]

Oboe, if you can wrangle a copy of "First Things," the new issue, April 2007, #172, George Weigel's essay "Just War and Iraq Wars" touches on some of the points you highlighted.  Especially that it is not a "single" conflict.

I'm about 2/3rds the way through it.  

If you read it, give a holler.

hap

[Toad]

I don't see anyway it can qualify under Just War Theory.

We screwed up; now those famous words apply; "you break it, you buy it".

[cpxxx]

You can use any form of sophistry you choose to interpret the General's comments, but like it or not 'There is no military solution to Iraq'.

He says

And I think, again, that any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security, for all the reasons that I stated in my remarks, but it is not sufficient.

He's right and I claim no prescience in saying the solution to the problem in Iraq is political not military.

Northern Ireland, which naturally is familiar to me is a classic case. Both sides eventualy recognised that military intervention/terrorism didn't work. They had an election last week and the likely result is that the two bitterest enemies are about to share government (fingers crossed).

 You can name any number of precedents you like. The solution is always political. The good general knows this and the sooner everyone else does too the sooner it happens.

The same principles apply to Al Qaeda led terrorism. They can't be defeated by the military only by politics.

[oboe]

Was hoping you'd pop in, Hap.   I think I found a link for Weigel's essay but it seems to be dated April 2006 - is it the same article?
Iraq: Then and Now

He definitely believes Iraq falls under the Just War category, but I agree with Toad.

Toad, you may want to review the article linked above - 1/2 way through he goes into a long discussion of Just War as ot pertains to Iraq.

Is there a penalty due for leaders of countries who launch an unjust war?

[Airscrew]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Wow, that was some professional journalism by CNN, to snip out the parts they wanted to hear.

boy howdy, I'm sure glad those other guys dont do that, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX...

Is there a penalty due for leaders of countries who launch an unjust war?

yea they dont get re-elected