Thread: Subdue Iran, secure Iraq

A report from Iraq.

Iraq
Iraq starts to fix itself

Jun 12th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Its people are still suffering monstrously, but Iraq is doing far better than it was only a few months ago

AFTER all the blood and blunders, people are right to be sceptical when good news is announced from Iraq. Yet it is now plain that over the past several months, while Americans have been distracted by their presidential primaries, many things in Iraq have at long last started to go right.

This improvement goes beyond the fall in killing that followed General David Petraeus's “surge”. Iraq's government has gained in stature and confidence. Thanks to soaring oil prices it is flush with money. It is standing up to Iraq's assorted militias and asserting its independence from both America and Iran. The overlapping wars—Sunni against American, Sunni against Shia and Shia against Shia—that harrowed Iraq after the invasion of 2003 have abated. The country no longer looks in imminent danger of flying apart or falling into everlasting anarchy. In September 2007 this newspaper supported the surge not because we had faith in Iraq but only in the desperate hope that the surge might stop what was already a bloodbath from becoming even worse (see article). The situation now is different: Iraq is still a mess, but something approaching a normal future for its people is beginning to look achievable.
The guns begin to fall silent

As General Petraeus himself admits, and our briefing this week argues, the change is fragile, and reversible (see article). But it is real. Only a few months ago, Iraq was in the grip not only of a fierce anti-American insurgency but also of a dense tangle of sectarian wars, which America seemed powerless to stop. Those who thought it was just making matters worse by staying on could point to the bloody facts on the ground as evidence. But now it is time to look again. Each of those overlapping conflicts has lately begun to peter out.

A few Sunnis, motivated by Islam or simple resentment of foreign military occupation, continue to attack American forces. But many Sunni tribes, repelled by the atrocities committed by their former and often foreign allies in al-Qaeda, have joined the so-called Sunni awakening, the Sahwa, and crossed over to America's side. At the same time, Sunnis and Shias have stopped killing each other in the vast numbers that followed the blowing up of a Shia shrine in early 2006. General Petraeus's surge is only one reason for this. Another reason, less flattering to the Americans, is that after last year's frenzied ethnic cleansing fewer neighbourhoods are still mixed. But it is also the case that a lot of Iraqis, having waded briefly into the horror of indiscriminate sectarian slaughter, have for the present made a conscious decision to step back.

The conflict between Shias and Shias has died down too. In the past few weeks Iraq's prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, has belied a reputation for weakness by sending the army to take control of the port city of Basra and the Baghdad slum known as Sadr City, both strongholds until then of the powerful militia run by Muqtada al-Sadr, a vehemently anti-American Shia cleric. The fact that Mr Sadr considered it wise not to resist suggests not only that the army is now strong enough to out-face private militias but also that the state has acquired far greater political legitimacy, in Shia minds at least.

Needless to say, these conflicts could resume. The Sunnis fighting on America's side today could direct their fire back towards the Americans and Shias tomorrow if not enough room is made for them in the new, Shia-dominated order. On the Shia side, it is not clear whether Mr Sadr has given up violence for good. And his is not the only political movement to have a private army. Sunnis, Shias and Kurds alike still see their respective militias as a hedge against an uncertain future.

To that extent, Iraq is still far from normality. But if the calm survives, politics will at least have a chance. Mr Maliki's next job is therefore to go ahead with the provincial elections due before the end of the year. A good showing by the Sunnis, too few of whom voted in 2005, could bring them back into the political mainstream, enabling them to wield serious power in their own provinces at least. The elections can also provide a useful alternative path to power for the Sadrists, if they really have given up violence and decide to take part.

George Bush meanwhile has a further part to play, which consists mainly of not doing things that might tempt him. He should not, for example, attack Iran. One of the impressive things about Iraq's present government is its refusal to take sides between America and its next-door neighbour. It needs good relations with both if it is to prosper. Mr Bush has also to find a way to leave to his successor the business of negotiating a new agreement on the status of American forces in Iraq. This may become a toxic issue in Iraq's elections as the existing UN mandate expires. Mr Maliki is said to want a guarantee that America will defend its borders. His opponents accuse America of seeking permanent bases in Iraq, turning it into a vassal. It would be wrong for a lame duck in Washington to tie the hands of the next administration on such matters.

It's really not about that any more

In highlighting the improved conditions in Iraq we do not mean to justify The Economist's support of the invasion of 2003 (see article). Too many lives have been shattered for that. History will still record that the invasion and occupation have been a debacle. Iraqis even now live under daily threat of violent death: hundreds are killed each month. They remain woefully short of the necessities of life, such as jobs, clean water and electricity. Iraq's government is gaining confidence faster than competence. It is still fractious, and in many places corrupt.

Nor does it follow that a turn for the better necessarily validates John McCain's insistence on America staying indefinitely. A safer Iraq might make Barack Obama's plan to pull out most American troops within 16 months more feasible, though at the moment a precipitate withdrawal looks foolish. But to guard the fragile improvements, the key for America must be flexibility. Both candidates have to keep their options open. If America's next president gets Iraq wrong because he has boxed himself in during the campaign, all the recent gains may be squandered and Iraq will slide swiftly back into misery and despair. That would be to fail twice over.

Iraq | Iraq starts to fix itself | Economist.com

A view how Iraq has changed and it is changing and nothing should deter this path.

If anything skews this process then something may hit the ceiling!

Brigadier,

Do you favor an Iranian bomb? If so, why? Is it your considered opinion that Iran is not pursuing a bomb?

Well, I say where's the help? Where's the "relentless pressure" from India? You're so crystalline about the Pakistanis but fascinatingly muddled about Iran. I worry about your agenda in the face of the baldly obvious, Brigadier. You wring pleas of compassion about the downstream effects of a U.S. attack upon Iran. You've not uttered one word about the downstream impact to regional security if Iran obtains nuclear weapons.

"It would be better for the US to concentrate on Iraq and stabilise it and at the same time, keep up the relentless pressure on Iran rather than embarking on yet another military adventure that might backfire!"

Is it just possible that those awful "neocons" were right about Iraq, despite the Iraqis, our "allies", and everybody else all so eager to toss America under the bus. Heaven forbid that we have it right. Where's the perfection?

Doing the right thing and making it work despite the absence of notable help elsewhere is hardly a "backfire".

Brigadier, it's too bad that you quietly delight in the U.S. willingness to tote the heavy load. This is a burden to all right-minded and free peoples and America has, by far, carried the burden while deflecting the pontifications of those who stand in judgment but lift nary a finger until they, again, are targets.

If you think that the world is a safer and better place with Saddam resurrected from the grave and placed back into power, sir, you should say so. If you believe that the Taliban deserve their place in Kabul, sir, you should say so. If you trust in the considered judgement of the Russian government against the word of men like Robert Gates, Brigadier, I'd appreciate if you'd say so.

As our senior-ranking member, Brigadier, a certain clarity of position is expected, wouldn't you agree?

I definitely do not favour an Iranian bomb. Of that there is no doubt in my mind.

But the confusion that has been there with IAEA's statement, the EU and the US, I sure am unsure as to what is the truth.

I sure would hate another imbroglio with erroneous intelligence as the WMD one!

I want to be sure and then go ahead!

I don't find delight at US' discomfort. I feel sad that it jumps into issues without much thought and then remains helpless to extricate itself and more so, since no other country has its technological prowess or the vast wherewithal that can assist to do thing well and efficiently.

The US should go chest out and not bumble along is what I say. Call me a Devil if you wish, but remember you have to add the word, "Advocate" also!

It pains me to see the US muddling through when she should be riding the waves with confidence and authority of the past and not in the current sad and forlorn manner!

As far as my position goes, I judge by the merits of the facts available to me. Russia is no friend of mine and instead the US has come closer and we are more than keen that this equation fosters. Hence, US without its old authority is worrisome to us since we would like US' word to be final to make the world a safer place.

If in our wisdom, we feel that something is amiss, it is better to say so rather than be fussywokis, which I believe in Tahiti means a sweet tongued flatterer!!

Or do you prefer sycophants?

As far as Iraq is concerned, you may feel it is a right thing to have been done, but others don't share your views and surely not sharing your view does not make one a Devil or a pariah!

As far as Iran's bomb is concerned, everything must be done to prevent it but to go to war when resources to fight and bring it to a logical conclusion in a proper timeframe are not there, and basing the war only on sheer laurels of the US might (actually depleted in to three campaigns) is foolhardy and hardly military like!

Robert Gates may be a revered figure in the US, but it does not necessarily mean that he is so with me and where is the connection with the Russian view?!

S2,

I am sure you are aware of the Principles of War.

Therefore, with wars ongoing and inviting a third, equally arduous, is over reaching in a military manner of speaking.

Could you educate me as to how all these three wars are to be conducted and managed and concluded within a reasonable timeframe?

Iraq and Afghanistan is still a question mark, even if it is relatively better than before.

Is there no other way to destroy the nuke facilities in Iran without a war or sabre rattling?

Could it not have been done in a quieter manner and without Iran being on guard with the whole world as spectators?

Must everything be done with the noise and fireworks of a Fourth of July display?

What if the Iran War turns into another fiasco?

Who will eat humble pie then?

It should have been done much earlier with a clandestine surgical strike and then there would be no hue and cry or second opinions as is now.

Something like the Israeli strike on Iraq's nuclear facility but even more covert I would say.

Brigadier,

Clandestine. Untracable even? Brigadier, you can't be serious?! A program active since 1983 and in multiple locations?

You haven't answered my direct questions. Instead, you obliquely suggest agreement but now blame America (again) that we're pulling out the fireworks on a matter easily snuffed if done so earlier.

This is disingenuous and deflective of the salient issue before us. Like A.M. and the taliban negotiations, you foreswear any coercive leverage and rely on your oppos good will to see you through.

Airstrikes, Brigadier. Ground combat on key islands in the straits. A long-term sustained campaign to knock down the Iranian IADS, keep it down and systematically plow under all valid military targets (save the Army), IRGC/al Quds C3I, key government locations, and (obviously) all nuclear-related targets. Continue until "uncle" and IAEA unlimited inspections. Move to nat'l infrastructure if and as necessary until compliance.

Mahdi Army? We don't leave until January next year even without a U.N. extension or SOFA. Mahdi Army is DEAD if they attempt to move on our troops. So too anybody else while this is going on. Sorry should you find it upsetting to your sensibilities but the U.S. has made it clear repeatedly that we won't abide an Iranian nuclear choke-hold on the gulf.

Sooner or later that's gotta stand for something tangible. Interestingly, most of you know that we likely mean it. Let's hope that distinct possibility takes hold where nothing else of note seems.

Originally Posted by zraver

S-2, the Iranian mess is at least partially the US's fault when we refused dialog twice and wrote them into the Axis of Evil. Two of those axis of evil members got invaded, the one with the possibility of a nuke got free fuel oil and rice. Imagine what simple open diplomacy instead of polemics might have achieved, might still achieve if we simply drop the Arrogant American shtick. We gave North Korea energy and security guarantees, why cant we do the same with the only functioning Islamic democracy in the Middle East? America and Iran are natural allies not enemies.

That is exactly what has been and is happening. It does however require Iranian cooperation

Risk of new sanctions as Iran rejects latest UN nuclear deal

·Tehran spokesman calls proposal unacceptable

·Diplomats hope offer will split conservative regime

A nuclear deal proposed by the major powers appeared yesterday to have widened rifts among Iran's ruling conservatives but seemed unlikely to lead to a quick diplomatic breakthrough.

The proposal, made by the five permanent members of the UN security council as well as Germany, and made public yesterday, offered help building "light water" reactors, the "provision of legally binding nuclear fuel supply guarantees, cooperation with regard to management of spent fuel and radioactive waste" in return for Iran's suspension of uranium enrichment and reprocessing.

A spokesman for the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, rejected the conditions as "unacceptable" and "not debatable at all". President George Bush said the Iranian government had "rejected this generous offer out of hand".

However, Tehran has made no formal response to the package, which was delivered by the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana and a team of senior international diplomats. Iran's parliamentary speaker, Ali Larijani, gave it a warmer welcome.

"The parliament will carefully study the package," Larijani told the parliament, or Majlis. He said Iran would welcome negotiations but would not forget its sovereign rights.

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the head of the national security and foreign policy committee in the Majlis, told the Iranian news agency IRNA that "we can reach an agreement over common points".

The British representative accompanying Solana, Mark Lyall Grant, the foreign office's political director, stayed on in Tehran yesterday for bilateral talks.

British officials said before the Solana mission that they did not expect the package to be accepted - it is similar to a proposal rejected in 2006 - but hoped it would stimulate a debate among conservative Iranian politicians over the economic costs of pursuing enrichment and reprocessing, which the UN security council wants suspended because of the risk of proliferation.

However, a senior British source said Iran would be given only about a month to make up its mind before new EU sanctions were imposed, targeting Iran's biggest bank, Bank Melli. Talks over a fourth wave of sanctions for Iran would also start at the security council.

Russia and China are resistant to tougher sanctions, arguing that they risk driving Iran deeper into isolation and defiance. As a consequence, the US may seek to assemble a "coalition of the willing" for direct action, possibly including a naval blockade of Iranian shipping in the Persian Gulf or a ban on exports of equipment and technology for Iran's oil industry.

President Bush also refuses to exclude the option of using military force before he leaves office next January.

Israeli officials have said their country might carry out military action against Iran's nuclear facilities rather than accept its emergence as a nuclear rival in the region.

Alongside the nuclear proposals in the Solana package, were offers to lift all restrictions on trade with Iran, including the export of airliner spare parts that Iranian aviation badly needs, and support for Iranian membership of the World Trade Organisation.

Thanks but no thanks on the talky-talky. To whom and about what that hasn't already been made clear? A waste of time but the necessary formalities are (I believe) finally exhausted. Arrogant? Get off it. Try putting THAT shoe on Iran's foot where it belongs.

There's been sufficient dialog to date to clearly know where all stand on this issue. Lots and lots of carrots. No movement whatsoever, but it's OUR arrogance that has you so worried.

Lots of reasons for a different approach w/ N. Korea. Have you noticed where they are? End of the log chain. No Hormuz or Malacca in sight. Surrounded by Russia, PRC, S. Korea, Japan, and the U.S. Different story with a different time-line demanding a different approach with different points of leverage altogether.

"...why cant we do the same with the only functioning Islamic democracy in the Middle East?"

Iran? You can't be serious? Please tell me that was an ill-thought joke.

Originally Posted by S-2

Brigadier,

Clandestine. Untracable even? Brigadier, you can't be serious?! A program active since 1983 and in multiple locations?

You haven't answered my direct questions. Instead, you obliquely suggest agreement but now blame America (again) that we're pulling out the fireworks on a matter easily snuffed if done so earlier.

This is disingenuous and deflective of the salient issue before us. Like A.M. and the taliban negotiations, you foreswear any coercive leverage and rely on your oppos good will to see you through.

Airstrikes, Brigadier. Ground combat on key islands in the straits. A long-term sustained campaign to knock down the Iranian IADS, keep it down and systematically plow under all valid military targets (save the Army), IRGC/al Quds C3I, key government locations, and (obviously) all nuclear-related targets. Continue until "uncle" and IAEA unlimited inspections. Move to nat'l infrastructure if and as necessary until compliance.

Mahdi Army? We don't leave until January next year even without a U.N. extension or SOFA. Mahdi Army is DEAD if they attempt to move on our troops. So too anybody else while this is going on. Sorry should you find it upsetting to your sensibilities but the U.S. has made it clear repeatedly that we won't abide an Iranian nuclear choke-hold on the gulf.

Sooner or later that's gotta stand for something tangible. Interestingly, most of you know that we likely mean it. Let's hope that distinct possibility takes hold where nothing else of note seems.

S 2,

You make me work overtime to reply to your posts. You are a slave driver with no remorse. Simon Legree, right?!

Let us look at some of the Principles of War.

Selection and Maintenance of the Aim
Define the end state and ensure that all strategy is directed toward achieving it.

Concentration of Force
Make the best use of military power to achieve the commander's aims by overwhelming the enemy's military capacity.

Economy of Effort
Make efficient use of forces, conserving energy and materiel to prevent unnecessary depletion.

I don’t have to be a Guderian or an Eisenhower to realise that flitting from flower to flower (Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea and now Iran) is violating the Selection and Maintenance of Aim, Concentration and Economy of Effort. If one is to be decisive and win a war, one cannot become a video game.

Does the US have the troops (forget about the machines) to be decisive in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran at the same time?

How long do you think that the Allies economy or domestic constraints are going to keep shoring up the US Administration’s military adventures that defy military logic?

If the US had just taken them one by one, then victory and success would have been more plausible than the morass that all have sunk in, that only brings despondency. It must be remembered, this is real war and not some computer Master of the Universe programmed game. Real war cannot be programmed. It springs surprises and one must have reserves to force the issue and recreate reserves as fast as they get sucked in. The US has no reserves and fudging to create reserves by increasing the tenures or rotation only tires the troops and sets in complacency. When one goes in the first time, one is charged with zeal, but when it becomes routine, it becomes boring and when it becomes boring, efficiency fades and when efficiency fades, then it takes longer to accomplish and you are there for a long haul and unnecessary accumulation of body bags!

Let me explain Afghanistan since the milieu is familiar to Kashmir. You would have read the wails in certain forums of how India is subjugating the Kashmiris with millions of Indian troops etc. There are no millions there, but yes, there is a huge number of IA personnel there. It is not to subjugate the Kashmiris. It is to stop the foreign terrorists and also mop up those who infiltrate successfully. And this requires colossal amount of troops and still India finds it cannot stop sensational terrorist actions! Indeed, if we were to do as the ISAF is doing, we would be at sixes and sevens and more so since we don’t have the luxury of bombing hideouts in Pakistan as the US can, since we do not possess the power and clout to shut up the opposition and make the grin and bear it as the US does. Does US have colossal amount of troops to curb the insurgency in Afghanistan? If not, then it is militarily stupid to go search for another enemy (Iran) when one can’t handle the ongoing one(s).

You may well ask, why you require so much of troops? Well, for starters, you do, because first you have to seal the borders (easier said and done given the gullies, the forest cover or the rugged terrain with boulders giving cover and because if you are on one height that is well above 10,000 ft, it is well nigh impossible to go down and then up to chase a group of terrorists in the adjoining height of 10,000 ft and above). To seal a border is not feasible since it would mean a soldier every yard or metre. Even border fences with surveillance devices have not stopped them because reaction in High Altitude or mountains is not that easy and fast as in the plains. Now, calculate, how many divisions would be required in Afghanistan just to ‘’seal the border’’.

And yet, the terrorists will slip by and these have also to be tackled.

Therefore, you require Rear Area Security. This will require bases and columns and reserves that overlap in striking distance. Now calculate how much of troops would be required to cover such an area as Afghanistan. Don’t forget even simple Jailbreaks as has happened recently in Afghanistan is embarrassing apart from adding to the woes! Therefore, a colossal amount of troops would be required.

Do also crank in R&R and replacements for such R&R troops since the US troops are used to the same.

Now sit back and calculate if you have the troops to fight terrorists in Afghanistan!

You will find that with what you and the ISAF have in the kitty, you are only playing a video game and not really being able to come to grips with the situation.

And you want to take on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran at the same time!!

That is plain over ambitiousness and totally contrary to the Principles of War and plain logic and common sense. If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.

Therefore, war in Iran is not the answer since War is simply not feasible if indeed one wants a logical conclusion. If one is to merely do so for effect and then meander around aimlessly with knee jerk solutions to every knee jerk situation that arises, then of course such a comic charade of a war is surely on the cards.

You mock my suggestion of a clandestine operation. Indeed, it was a safe mode as safe as the destruction of the alleged Syrian nuclear facility by Israel. Even as we speak today, one is left guessing if there was indeed a nuclear facility or a mere show of might by the Isrealis!! And it was hardly clandestine! It is a pastime in America to blame poor intelligence as an excuse for botched action, similar in useless whine to the Pakistanis blaming all their own faults to the machinations of the US, Israel and India!! If the US intelligence is so incompetent with all the finances, gadgetry and the works, then all intelligence agencies of other countries are real pits!! I do not for one minute believe that the US intelligence is incompetent. The US surely knows where the nuclear facilities are of Iran. Yes, teams could have been sent to blow them up clandestinely, Or are the spine chilling exploits (the ones available in print) of the US clandestine operations mere fiction filled with hyperbole? I am astounded that when faced with such a grave situation as Iran, US plays to the gallery tomtoming with all the brouhaha of going to war against Iran, Axis of Evil and other comic book syntax instead of quietly going about with the aim with everyone caught off guard. It is very odd that one warns the enemy to prepare and then wishes to attack! Is American lives that cheap?

You feel the Mehdi Army is dead. I don’t. You can say I am cautious. I rather err on the positive and have all contingencies catered for rather than being surprised and left whimpering. You call that sly! I call that planning and not leaving everything to God and Good Luck. What makes you feel that Al Sadr would sit back and allow a fair contest between US and Iran? What makes you feel that Shias will sit back and allow their co religionist go down like a pack of cards. You still have not understood the Moslem psyche. Religion to them is thicker than water and blood!!

The issue is not that I am pro of anti US. I am merely a pragmatist. Whether it is the US or India, and if I am to judge an issue, I will not let my heart and emotions guide my decisions. As I look at it, Iraq has degraded the US majesty over world events because unlike before where the very name of the US demanded attention, Iraq has ruined the whole aura!! It may not pain you, but it pains me to see a great country sinking to being common place and that too, without her in any way being weaker than before in any of the spheres of geopolitics and geopolitical weapons and clout!

Like it or not, the degradation of US moral authority and of being invincible, does pain me.

It is that pain that speaks which you mistake as anti US!!

Let the usual American psychology of ""everyone hates us"" not take a grip over such a person of intellect as you. Leave such sentiments to the yokels!

Brigadier,

I wrote a long reply, sir, and canned it. I simply don't see Iraq as a failure, much less a moral failure by America. Nor Afghanistan. Nor do I see our forces decisively engaged such that we can't sustain those operations, protect our forces, and wage holy hell upon Iran if necessary.

Necessary means, bluntly, an Iranian nuke. One. If you prefer pragmatism and realpolitik then you can comfortably digest the notion that I prefer OUR chokehold on the straits of Hormuz over Iran's. We've a far greater investment than Iran in the global economy and recognize the patent need for free and unfettered access by ALL nations to energy.

I've ZERO confidence in Iranian strategic ambitions as anything except selfish and hegomonistic. Nothing about their actions nor policies should give you comfort either. Perhaps it's India's policy to appease Iranian sensibilities such that your energy interests remain open to Persian inducement. If so, let any small nation unable to secure for itself access to these commodities know that America will defend that right even should India find it inconvenient otherwise.

POG, HAMAS, clandestine nuclear weapons programs dating to 1984. Latest findings show no slowing of enrichment activities. Bummer that some mullah's panties are in a twist by being called "evil". Mossadegh should have watched his own generals. I think that covers it. Oh! Our supreme court sits through a duly-elected congressional confirmation process that's been rather rigorous.

Naw. Iran's a huge threat to our immediate and near-term strategic interests. The pit bull will likely be fine. Kitty might want to worry a tad.