Is Baghdad Safer? Yes And No.

**Shek** · 13 Apr 07,, 12:46

Christian Science Monitor
April 13, 2007
Pg. 1

Is Baghdad Safer? Yes And No.

Although sections of the city remain war zones – and attacks are up outside Baghdad – there are pockets of relative calm emerging.

By Sam Dagher, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

BAGHDAD -- Is the two-month-old security push in Baghdad working?

In places, yes. But every day brings conflicting evidence. This week, a US official reported a 26 percent decline in civilian deaths from February to March in the capital.

On Thursday, a suicide bomber blew himself up in the Iraq parliament's cafeteria, deep in the fortified Green Zone. At least eight people, including two Iraqi lawmakers, were killed. That attack came hours after a truck bomb destroyed one of seven major bridges in Baghdad.

Although sections of the city remain war zones – and attacks are up outside Baghdad – there are new pockets of relative calm emerging. For some Baghdadis, the security plan is starting to provide an opportunity for a few simple pleasures: a meal in a restaurant, a stroll inside heavily guarded parks and gardens, or a quick shopping trip despite the uncertain outlook.

Overall, there has been a drop in sectarian-related murders and daily bombings due to the stepped up presence of US and Iraqi forces on the streets. The troop "surge" is not expected to reach full strength until June.

In Mansour, a once upscale area that until a few weeks ago was a ghost town because of the violence, some shops have reopened and people can be seen browsing windows or buying ice cream cones at Al-Rawad, a favorite of Baghdadis.

"Two months ago we had no one; now business has improved by 65 percent," says Lamia Ali, a salesperson at the Grand bridal store.

Aseed Yasin is shopping with his fiancée Zeinab Samir to pick a wedding dress because all shops in their predominantly Sunni neighborhood of Amiriyah were shut, he says, due to a rocket attack on the market on Tuesday.

"The situation is unbearable, we are getting married on Thursday and then off to Syria," he says.

A birthday celebration out

Earlier this week, Ahmed Yaqthan and his wife Samar Mahdi mused about the potential for a suicide bomber to walk into the crowded restaurant where they had ventured out for lunch to celebrate her birthday.

"I say whatever God has fated will happen," says Mrs. Mahdi, who is without a veil and dressed in a fashionable blouse – a rare sight in an increasingly conservative society.

The city's go-areas tend to be in the center and can be counted on one hand. On Tuesday, a day before their restaurant outing, Mahdi and Mr. Yaqthan were huddled for hours at their offices at the state audit board on the city's west bank on Haifa Street, about a mile from the fortified Green Zone. The couldn't leave because of heavy clashes between insurgents and US and Iraqi forces in the Sheikh Omar and Al-Fadhil areas just across the river.

At least seven people were killed, including four Iraqi soldiers, and 16 US soldiers were wounded in the fighting which involved Apache helicopters, according to the US military.

"When things calmed down a bit we just took an alternative route and went home," says Yaqthan, a bespectacled computer programmer speaking over the sound of Arabic pop songs streaming from loudspeakers overhead.

On Thursday, the Sarafiya bridge, one the couple sometimes use to cross over from their home on Palestine Street to their offices, collapsed after it was hit by a truck bomb killing at least 10 and wounding 29, according to a Ministry of Interior source.

The bridge and parliament bombings "are very calculated political messages that are meant to affect the morale of the government and its [international] backers. The claim that the security plan has sent insurgents scattering into the provinces has proven to be false," says Mustafa al-Ani, director of the Security and Terrorism Studies program at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center.

Earlier this week, the International Committee of the Red Cross, one of the few international aid groups operating in Iraq, issued a report that said "The humanitarian situation in Iraq is steadily worsening." Red Cross director Pierre Kraehenbuehl told the Associated Press that there has been no improvement in the security situation in Baghdad.

New doctors plan to leave

Out on the restaurant's terrace, a smiling Mateen Yashar in suit and tie with an Iraqi flag pin stuck to his lapel sits among two dozen of his classmates celebrating their graduation from Baghdad University's medical school.

Everyone is dressed to the nines. Female graduates are wearing wreaths of flowers on their heads and clutch elaborate bouquets.

The day before, Mr. Yashar says, some of them were at their school adjacent to Al-Kindi hospital near Al-Fadhil when a student was hit and injured by a stray bullet from the fighting.

"You ask me to worry about what happened yesterday or this morning when we live our lives from minute to minute," he scoffs.

He says nearly a quarter of the 106 new doctors in the class of 2007 are already leaving Iraq, with the remainder working hard to do the same.

Someone in his group calls for the check. No lingering here because everyone must be home by 6 p.m., four hours before the start of the nightly curfew. Checkpoints or fighting could delay them by hours.

Out on Al-Rubaie Street, a stretch of shops, cafes, and restaurants on the capital's east side barricaded on both ends by Iraqi Army checkpoints, the owner of the Lailan hookah lounge says he reopened 10 days ago after being closed for months.

"People are really fed up so they come here and puff away for a bit," says the owner Muwaffaq Kamel when asked if business was improving because of the security plan.

New posters are starting to appear on the concrete blast walls protecting government buildings. "Iraq's light will never go out," declare the signs, part of a new government PR campaign. They show smiling actors posing as a doctor, mother, teacher, day laborer, and taxi driver. All urge Iraqis to go on with their lives despite the challenges.

In Mansour, at the Mishmisha juice shop, newlyweds Nabhan Ghazi and Alia Safir treat themselves to fruit cocktails topped with fresh cream.

He's unemployed and she's a schoolteacher and they live with Mr. Ghazi's parents in Saidiyah, a violence-wracked area south of Mansour.

"We have no prospects, but we decided to take the plunge and get married because we are not getting any younger," she says wearing a white veil matching her trendy outfit.

"We are suffocating in Saidiyah so we came here today for a breather."

**Shek** · 13 Apr 07,, 12:48

Washington Post
April 13, 2007
Pg. 17

The Surge: First Fruits

By Charles Krauthammer

By the day, the debate at home about Iraq becomes increasingly disconnected from the realities of the war on the ground. The Democrats in Congress are so consumed with negotiating among their factions the most clever linguistic device to legislatively ensure the failure of the administration's current military strategy -- while not appearing to do so -- that they speak almost not at all about the first visible results of that strategy.

And preliminary results are visible. The landscape is shifting in the two fronts of the current troop surge: Anbar province and Baghdad.

The news from Anbar is the most promising. Only last fall, the Marines' leading intelligence officer there concluded that the United States had essentially lost the fight to al-Qaeda. Yet just this week, the Marine commandant, Gen. James Conway, returned from a four-day visit to the province and reported that we "have turned the corner."

Why? Because, as Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, the Australian counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, has written, 14 of the 18 tribal leaders in Anbar have turned against al-Qaeda. As a result, thousands of Sunni recruits are turning up at police stations where none could be seen before. For the first time, former insurgent strongholds such as Ramadi have a Sunni police force fighting essentially on our side.

Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a major critic of the Bush war policy, reports that in Anbar, al-Qaeda is facing "a real and growing groundswell of Sunni tribal opposition." And that "this is a crucial struggle, and it is going our way -- for now."

The situation in Baghdad is more mixed. Yesterday's bridge and Green Zone attacks show the insurgents' ability to bomb sensitive sites. On the other hand, pacification is proceeding. "Nowhere is safe for Westerners to linger," ABC's Terry McCarthy reported on April 3. "But over the past week we visited five different neighborhoods where the locals told us life is slowly coming back to normal." He reported from Jadriyah, Karrada, Zayouna, Zawra Park and the notorious Haifa Street, previously known as "sniper alley." He found that "children have come out to play again. Shoppers are back in markets," and he concluded that "nobody knows if this small safe zone will expand or get swallowed up again by violence. For the time being though, people here are happy to enjoy a life that looks almost normal."

Fouad Ajami, just returned from his seventh trip to Iraq, is similarly guardedly optimistic and explains the change this way: Fundamentally, the Sunnis have lost the battle of Baghdad. They initiated it with an indiscriminate terror campaign they assumed would cow the Shiites, whom they view with contempt as congenitally quiescent, lower-class former subjects. They learned otherwise after the Samarra bombing in February 2006 kindled Shiite fury -- a savage militia campaign of kidnapping, indiscriminate murder and ethnic cleansing that has made Baghdad a largely Shiite city.

Petraeus is trying now to complete the defeat of the Sunni insurgents in Baghdad -- without the barbarism of the Shiite militias, whom his forces are simultaneously pursuing and suppressing.

How at this point -- with only about half of the additional surge troops yet deployed -- can Democrats be trying to force the United States to give up? The Democrats say they are carrying out their electoral mandate from the November election. But winning a single-vote Senate majority as a result of razor-thin victories in Montana and Virginia is hardly a landslide.

Second, if the electorate was sending an unconflicted message about withdrawal, how did the most uncompromising supporter of the war, Sen. Joe Lieberman, win handily in one of the most liberal states in the country?

And third, where was the mandate for withdrawal? Almost no Democratic candidates campaigned on that. They campaigned for changing the course the administration was on last November.

Which the president has done. He changed the civilian leadership at the Defense Department, replaced the head of Central Command and, most critically, replaced the Iraq commander with Petraeus -- unanimously approved by the Democratic Senate -- to implement a new counterinsurgency strategy.

John McCain has had no illusions about the difficulty of this war. Nor does he now. In his bold and courageous speech at the Virginia Military Institute defending the war effort, he described the improvements in Iraq while acknowledging the enormous difficulties ahead. Insisting that success in Iraq is both possible and necessary, McCain made clear that he is willing to stake his presidential ambitions, indeed his entire political career, on a war policy that is unpopular but that he believes must be pursued for the sake of the country. How many other presidential candidates -- beginning with, say, Hillary Clinton-- do you think are acting in the same spirit?

**Shek** · 13 Apr 07,, 12:49

Washington Times
April 13, 2007
Pg. 16

Quiet Step For Rule Of Law

By Austin Bay

Arguably, Col. Mark Martins runs the most multifaceted, pressure-packed and press-scrutinized law practice in the Middle East.

Col. Martins serves as staff judge advocate for Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), which makes him Gen. David Petraeus' top legal adviser.

He is prepared for the job. Col. Martins' military career began with a tour leading an airborne infantry platoon. His resume is a record of demanding military law assignments, including a stint in the office of the chairman of the joint chiefs. His academic record speaks volumes: first in order of general merit in his class at West Point, Rhodes Scholar with first class honors at Oxford, Harvard Law School and Law Review.

Within Iraq, Col. Martins' "law firm-in-uniform" handles an array of legal issues that have immediate analogs in the civilian world. The Judge Advocate General's (JAG) office oversees courts-martial (trial work) and authorizes investigations (district attorney work).

Military lawyers, of course, have "service unique" legal tasks. In the War on Terror, they often must advise senior commanders on the legal ramifications of attacking certain types of targets. That's a complicated job in a complicated theater of war.

However, Col. Martins, his staff and civilian legal personnel serving with other U.S. agencies in Iraq have an even more complex and, in my view, more critical assignment. These legal experts are helping Iraq's nascent democratic government implement the rule of law.

Replacing the violent whims of ideological, theocratic or tribal tyrants and terrorists with democratic law is a slow, frustratingly incremental process, but nevertheless a strategically essential and potentially decisive endeavor if peace, justice and genuine security are your goals.

In a phone interview from Baghdad, Col. Martins told me that in his estimation the Iraqi government made a small but significant step on April 2, when the Iraqi judiciary opened criminal trial proceedings in its new Rule of Law Complex in Baghdad.

The new facility itself is a compound in Baghdad's Resafa district that co-locates investigation and judicial operations. It is certainly a target for terrorists and fascist thugs because the murderers understand its physical existence represents precisely the kind of systemic change that will ultimately defeat them. Because it is a target, Iraq's ministries of interior and justice have devoted extensive resources to securing the Rule of Law Complex.

Col. Martins wanted to address the specifics of the complex's first criminal proceedings. There were two men brought into the investigative court, "an alleged Sunni al Qaeda operative and a Shia police officer," Col. Martins said. "Both had proceedings initiated for crimes again the Iraqi people. The al Qaeda operative was accused of killing scores of people, and the police officer accused of abusing detainees in his custody."

The Sunni terrorist accused of mass murder (likely of Shia Arabs) and the Shia cop nabbed for abuse and torture (likely of Sunnis) are, of course, symbolic of Iraq's sectarian strife. They are more than mere symbols, however. They are dreadful men who have committed vicious crimes.

Col. Martins did not want to oversell the judicial proceeding. "I've got to look at results on the ground and not get exuberant. This [proceeding] was just an investigation and a first couple of cases. It's still the early days [in this process]. That's why I'm taking a measured approach."

But I pushed him: This is Iraq, Colonel, Islam's tectonic collision of Shia and Sunni. Four years ago, one of the world's most vicious dictators was still in charge, preying on ethnic and religious differences and running a prison state in the Stalinist mold.

"You've got to give the Iraqis their due," Col. Martins replied. "The rule of law works in little steps, often methodical. Those steps are calm and deliberate when applied. I think as a lawyer it is dramatic, a small step that provides hope that Iraqis can reject the politics of revenge."

So then it's really significant, isn't it, Colonel? Instead of tribal or sectarian revenge slayings -- more bodies in the morgue -- they've begun the process of systemic change. "It is a step forward," Col. Martins agreed. "The Iraqi government made a step toward reconciliation by rejecting revenge -- submitting these two alleged criminals to a court."

No, the two criminal proceedings didn't get sensational headlines. But they should have.

**Herodotus** · 13 Apr 07,, 18:18

One interesting note about yesterday's bombing in the Parliament building...the death toll was reduced to 1. I think that's the first time I have ever seen a death toll actually reduced. No wait those other 7 people weren't really dead, they were just pretending. Talk about a brazen political gesture to try and de-value the importance of the bombing...deny, deny, deny.

**Stan187** · 13 Apr 07,, 18:32

Originally Posted by Herodotus

One interesting note about yesterday's bombing in the Parliament building...the death toll was reduced to 1. I think that's the first time I have ever seen a death toll actually reduced. No wait those other 7 people weren't really dead, they were just pretending. Talk about a brazen political gesture to try and de-value the importance of the bombing...deny, deny, deny.

Or there could have been inaccurate information that was later corrected. Maybe, just maybe, not everything is a conspiracy to cover up a quadmire.

**Ray** · 13 Apr 07,, 18:43

Biden Gets It Wrong

What is your take?

**Herodotus** · 13 Apr 07,, 18:43

Every inital death toll from every bombing out of this war has either stayed at the same number or increased. Initial reports would state for example 25 dead, and 80 wounded, and then some of the wounded die and it becomes 35 dead and 70 wounded. I have never seen a death toll that went from 8 killed and 20 wounded to 1 killed and 20 wounded until this one. So what happened to the other 7 people declared dead? Will Michelle Malkin and Flopping Aces investigate the mysterious disapperance of 7 bodies the way they investigated the AP stories? I wouldn't hold my breath. This is the first time the "official count" went down, and the first time the parliament building has been hit. Concidence?

**Ray** · 13 Apr 07,, 18:49

Stan,

Could it be that it is necessary for security reasons to give information including casualties a trifle off the truth?

Life is not black and white.

**Herodotus** · 13 Apr 07,, 18:51

Originally Posted by Ray

Biden Gets It Wrong

What is your take?

I take Kagan with a huge grain of salt, he is after all the author of the surge. He has a vested interest in seeing it succede. This is a typical response:

"We are not simply "squeezing the water balloon." Violence is up in the Baghdad belts because U.S. and Iraqi forces have been aggressively attacking al Qaeda bases in those areas that have been funneling weapons and fighters into Baghdad. Naturally when we attack his critical bases and lines of communication, the enemy fights back. The U.S. command has responded by sending more force into this area to exploit initial successes, which have played a role in keeping the AQI (al Qaeda in Iraq) violence in Baghdad under control."

It's a win-win situation for him either way...if violence is down that means the surge is working, violence is up...hey the surge is still working, we're forcing the bad guys to fight.

There are clear benchmarks to see if the surge is working; fewer civilian casualties, fewer troop casualties. Both have gone up or stayed the same since the surge has started. More troops=more targets, and insurgents still have space to operate in during this surge. The point of counter-insurgency is to deny insurgents space, and to do that we need even more troops. if we think 30,000 is enough send 60,000 to make sure, etc.

**Shek** · 13 Apr 07,, 18:55

Originally Posted by Herodotus

One interesting note about yesterday's bombing in the Parliament building...the death toll was reduced to 1. I think that's the first time I have ever seen a death toll actually reduced. No wait those other 7 people weren't really dead, they were just pretending. Talk about a brazen political gesture to try and de-value the importance of the bombing...deny, deny, deny.

Herodotus,

First reports are notoriously wrong. So, it wouldn't be a surprise in the confusion if folks that were injuried were reported as KIA. It'd be interesting to compare by name lists to see if it's a case of Murphy's Law where first reports are almost always wrong or if it is indeed an information operation to downplay the incident.

**Herodotus** · 13 Apr 07,, 19:27

Originally Posted by Shek

Herodotus,

First reports are notoriously wrong. So, it wouldn't be a surprise in the confusion if folks that were injuried were reported as KIA. It'd be interesting to compare by name lists to see if it's a case of Murphy's Law where first reports are almost always wrong or if it is indeed an information operation to downplay the incident.

Perhaps you are right. It just seems like it should be a death toll they should get right, since it was in the green zone, right there in the middle of the government. It would be interesting to see if the initial death toll included names of MPs that was given to the media by their enemies in the Parliament.

**Ray** · 13 Apr 07,, 20:21

Herodotus,

Contrary to what some people feel that I am not with the US, I would like to clarify for all that I have a very balanced view of the events. It is only the dimwits and halfwits who have nothing to offer than blind jingoism who are partisans who land up in horse manure!

Kagan maybe partisan and I assure you that by posting it, it does not reflect my endorsement of his views, but his views are worth note from an academic viewpoint. True that he may paint a rosy picture pursue his agenda, but in those pink clouds, one must search for the 'nuggets' and then form his own opinion. That is what I do.

That is why I posted it so that out of all the partisan reporting, the nuggets are gleaned!

I also want Iraq to succeed inspite of the bumbling and at time idiotic avenues being pursued.

There has been enough of highstanding and rhetoric and hate.

It is time to bring the the world at peace with itself!

**Herodotus** · 13 Apr 07,, 21:58

Originally Posted by Ray

Herodotus,

Contrary to what some people feel that I am not with the US, I would like to clarify for all that I have a very balanced view of the events. It is only the dimwits and halfwits who have nothing to offer than blind jingoism who are partisans who land up in horse manure!

Kagan maybe partisan and I assure you that by posting it, it does not reflect my endorsement of his views, but his views are worth note from an academic viewpoint. True that he may paint a rosy picture pursue his agenda, but in those pink clouds, one must search for the 'nuggets' and then form his own opinion. That is what I do.

That is why I posted it so that out of all the partisan reporting, the nuggets are gleaned!

I also want Iraq to succeed inspite of the bumbling and at time idiotic avenues being pursued.

There has been enough of highstanding and rhetoric and hate.

It is time to bring the the world at peace with itself!

Fair enough. I can appreciate good academic debate. But some parts of his article should be placed in the proper context. He states that US operations have netted some 700 members of Sadr's milita since the operations began two months ago. He points to this fact as proof that the surge is working and the US is turning the tables on the Sadrists. Take the number at face-value (though I have heard numbers much lower) and say he is correct. 700 is not a significant number since the Mahdi Army has been estimated of having upwards of 60,000 members.

Secondly he talks about the recent violence in Tal Afar, and states that even though Shiites and local police carried out reprisal attacks, it's okay because the violence didn't spiral out of control and the Iraqi Army came and resotred order. But there was probably never any danger of the violence spiraling out of control...most of the violence in Iraq is tit for tat, and maybe a little more. You killed my brother, so I will kill your cousin, etc. The reprisals were done long before the Iraqi Army came to Tal Afar, most likely, and thus the Army had little to do with actually re-storing order.

Finally he also mentions that the terrorists are changing tactics, but this is natural in any kind of war. The enemy adapts and so on and so it isn't anything to worry about if for the twelve thousandth time the terrorists change their tactics and adapt. But at some point something has to give, and that is the point of the surge. To date US forces in Iraq have had over 500 offensive operations, and every single time, the terrorists adapt and change their strategy and tactics. I would like to see the column that states hey the terrorists didn't or couldn't adapt since that would mean we are getting closer to victory.

Fredrick Kagan is no doubt a smart man, a brilliant academic mind, but he seems to be more in the role of a cheerleader for his plan instead of participating in honest debate about the outcomes of it. A good strategist will always want to tweak his plan, and it remains to be seen if Kagan sees any faults with his master plan.

Fighting to Win

Maybe it will work, hopefully it will.

**Shek** · 14 Apr 07,, 13:07

Originally Posted by Herodotus

There are clear benchmarks to see if the surge is working; fewer civilian casualties, fewer troop casualties. Both have gone up or stayed the same since the surge has started. More troops=more targets, and insurgents still have space to operate in during this surge. The point of counter-insurgency is to deny insurgents space, and to do that we need even more troops. if we think 30,000 is enough send 60,000 to make sure, etc.

Herodotus,

You are dead on with the numbers game, unfortunately, we have to go to war with the Army we have, and while SecDef Gates pushed through the long needed increase in force structure, in the meantime we don't have that option.

In terms of indicators, your troop casualties will lag behind your civilian casualties. As we move out to the combat outposts (COPs) in Baghdad, we will be engaged in fights against those who currently own the turf. Thus, one should expect troop casualties to increase, which I think you wrote. Civilian casualties should decrease once the COPs are established, but troop casualties may still be elevated for a while as we fully establish the trust of those in the oil spots we are creating.

One question that the stats below don't tell are what the civilian casualties are from outside of Baghdad - how many are due to the splinter of groups formally aligned with AQI? While more deaths is never good, deaths stemming from AQI on local Iraqi violence a far different thing than sectarian EJKs (extra-judicial killings), with the EJKs continuing the cycle of violence and the AQI on local Iraqi resulting in groups seeing their self-interests not aligned with AQI, and potentially pushing them over into our camp.

As a sidebar, good metrics for COIN are not set in stone, and the following thread from SWJ talks of an interesting indicator for Anbar - how many times Marines from a platoon eat dinner with an Iraqi family.

Great idea on a Measure of Effectiveness - Small Wars Council

Boston Globe
April 14, 2007

Baghdad Civilian Deaths Drop Since Crackdown

By Associated Press

BAGHDAD -- Iraqi civilian deaths have fallen in Baghdad in the two months since the Feb. 14 start of the US-led offensive, according to an Associated Press tally. Outside the capital, however, civilian deaths are up as Sunni and Shi'ite extremists shift their operations to avoid the crackdown.

The security mission has taken a heavy toll on US forces: Deaths among American soldiers climbed 21 percent in Baghdad compared with the previous two months.

Since the crackdown began, US military officials have spoken of encouraging signs that security is improving in the capital but have cautioned against drawing any firm conclusions until at least the summer.

Figures compiled by the AP from Iraqi police reports show that 1,586 civilians were killed in Baghdad between the start of the offensive and Thursday. That represents a sharp drop from the 2,871 civilians who died violently in the capital during the two months that preceded the security crackdown.

Outside the capital, 1,504 civilians were killed between Feb. 14 and Thursday, compared with 1,009 deaths during the two previous months, the AP figures show.

"We know this increased security presence and cooperation from the people is having an impact in Baghdad," Major General William C. Caldwell, a US military spokesman, said this week. "It is a good beginning, but it is not nearly enough. The violence across the rest of Iraq remains at unacceptable levels."

**Herodotus** · 14 Apr 07,, 20:04

Brooking's latest Iraq iNdex has an estimate of civilian deaths so far this year, based on news reports, and press briefings.

It breaks down as:

Jan. 3,000 (est.)
Feb. 2,790
Mar. 3,070

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

We'll have to wait and see how April and May play out. If they average around 3,000 per month than the surge isn't working. If the casualties drop then we may be on to something.