The much anticipated quagmire in Fallujah, like the other quagmires predicted by the media and intellectuals, did not materialize. Instead of detailing the unprecedented successes of the Coalition and the heroism of our soldiers, the media’s focus on the insurgency in Iraq has moved from Fallujah to outlying areas of the Sunni Triangle. The recent unrest in Mosul is offered as proof that the insurgency is growing, despite the reduction of Fallujah as a base of operations, the seizure of torture chambers and bomb factories, and the capture or deaths of thousands of insurgents or terrorists in their vain attempts to defend the city from the Coalition onslaught.
While Mosul has encountered violence from the insurgents, it has not become a safe haven for terrorists as Fallujah was. American and Iraq forces maintain bases within the city, conduct patrols and can carry our operations at will. A main source of the instability in Mosul is due to the unreliability of the local police forces. Some police are sympathetic to the insurgent’s cause, and the problem went straight to the top. Mosul’s chief of police, who fled the city after being removed from command, was arrested after failing to prevent and possibly allowing insurgents to overtake police stations in the city. Iraqi soldiers, backed by American forces, are clearing out problem neighborhoods in Mosul, even as the decapitated bodies of Iraqi soldiers are uncovered.
Pentagon planners are considering deploying the ready brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division to Iraq to free up elements of the 1st Calvary Division to hunt down the insurgents before they can reestablish bases of operations.
“What’s important is to keep the pressure on these guys now that we’ve taken Fallujah from them,” a high-ranking U.S. military commander said, speaking on condition he not be named because of the sensitivity of the deliberations on adding more troops. “We’re in the pursuit phase. We have to stay after these guys so they don’t get their feet set.”
This is significant as the rapid deployment brigade of the 82nd Airborne would not be considered without serious deliberations. This is the Army’s highest unit of readiness, with elements sitting on the tarmac of Pope Air Force Base ready to go at a moment’s notice. Either the situation on the ground is dire (highly unlikely based on all information available) or the Coalition believes there is an opportunity to rout the enemy and achieve the goal of conducting elections in January, and the deployment of this brigade will positively impact the situation on the ground.
In a twist of events, a Sunni Cleric that opposed the scheduled elections is assassinated, indicating the locals of Mosul may not be so willing to support the insurgency and sit out the upcoming elections. The elections are a serious threat to the insurgency, as a democratically elected government will provide added legitimacy to destroy the insurgency and cement the formerly powerful Sunnis as a minority party that no longer controls the future of Iraq. Attacks in Mosul may be as much about destroying the prospects for elections as election officials and materials have been the targets of threats and violence.
But Mosul’s insurgents believed to include loyalists of Saddam Hussein and militant Islamic groups have wasted no time in making clear that anything related to the vote could become a target. Several grocery store owners who were supposed to distribute voter registration forms to Iraqis along with their monthly government food rations have been threatened, officials said.
One store owner, Mohammed Abdul Qader, said eight militants showed up at his store in eastern Mosul and told him that handing out registration forms could cost him his life. “They asked me to give them all the sheets if I received any or else they would kill me. I was very scared,” he said.
The restoration of security in Mosul and elsewhere is critical to conducting elections on January 30th. Violence in the western region of Iraq is only likely to increase as elections move forward. The Sunni Ba’athists and their terrorist allies fear democracy in Iraq as it is a sure sign of defeat for their organizations. For the Sunni Ba’athists, a democratically elected government of Iraq would destroy any hopes of returning to power, as the Shi’ites and Kurds will not tolerate a rebellious Sunni insurgency. For the Islamist terrorists, democracy in Iraq, as in Afghanistan, would show the world the Taliban-like Islamist movement is not supported by Muslims who have the ability to choose their own destiny. Successful elections in Iraq will not end the insurgency or the Islamofascists’ violence. But elections will demonstrate that these movements are morally bankrupt and devoid of widespread support, and that freedom can take root in the most unlikely places, even in the heart of the traditionally undemocratic Arab world.
Note:
Arthur Chrenkoff’s latest edition of Good News from Iraq is a highly recommended read for those who tire of reading the inordinate amount of negative news emanating from Iraq. Arthur skillfully compiles the good news relating to government, reconstruction, security and other areas.
20 Comments
Conservatives have their nerve calling Fallujah “a quagmire that never materialized”. What about the quagmire that did materialize in the country of Iraq? (not just the battle of Fallujah). Was Hue City a quagmire that never materialized or part of a larger quagmire?
OK, Ryan, two can play your game.
Liberals have the nerve referring to every and any military operation the United States becomes involved with as a quagmire.
How exactly is Iraq a quagmire? Please educate us. Or did you expect us to be able to take over Iraq and build a consentual government in a matter of weeks?
Note to you, Ryan. Just because something is difficult does not make it a quagmire. And just because the media labels it as such does not make it so. Do you have children, Ryan? It costs lots of time, effort and money to raise them, but I doubt any parent would refer to it as “the quagmire of child-rearing.”
Your comparison of Fallujah to Hue, or Iraq to Vietnam, illustrates your lack of knowledge in matters of history, particularly on the Vietnam War. Do you know how many casualties we took to secure Hue or how long the Battle of Hue City took to win? Do you realize in Vietnam we lost most of our soldiers fighting the regular army of North Vietnam? Did you know that in Vietnam, we purposefully did not invade North Vietnam? Did you know that China and the Soviet Union were active supporters of the NVA? Now explain to me how Iraq is like Vietnam.
The terrain, the nature of the enemy, the freedom of operations and the support mechanisms for the insurgents are very different between Vietnam and Iraq.
Or just keep yelling quagmire, if it makes you feel better….
The Casualties at Hue were 125 dead US soldiers. In Fallujah, it is something like 65 so far and there’s still fighting. Wounded numbers are about the same. If you don’t think Iraq is a quagmire, then what would you consider a quagmire?
There are some differences between Iraq and Vietnam but many similarities as well. Comparison of Saddam’s Fedayeen with the Viet Cong is a pretty accurate depiction. They both use intimidation of the public as a tool to their advantage. Most of the Iraqi insurgents were former members of the Iraqi Republican Guard and Fedayeen, which means that they were a regular force at one time. China and Russia were supporting the Viet Cong. Iran and Syria are supporting the Iraqi insurgents. In Vietnam, we didn’t know who we were fighting. We were fighting the North Vietnamese but also fighting an “insurgency” there just like in Iraq. The main differences are that the Shiies are behind us in Iraq and it is only 20% of the population that rejects our presence. The insurgency also has far fewer men than the Viet Cong. In addition to that, we are planning on having elections in Iraq instead of just supporting a puppet dictator like Vietnam. We have a good chance to win in Iraq unlike Vietnam but we will never win by underestimating the enemy or refusing to recognize reality.
Iraq is a closer similarity to the Soviets in Afghanistan who lost even though they only lost 3 soldiers per day.
I’d like to see a link to one site when a member of the media predicted that Fallujah would be a quagmire.
Ryan,
Casualties were much higher than that.
That same day [January 31], U.S. Marines launched Operation Hue City to retake the city for the South Vietnamese. North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces were driven out of Hue little by little as U.S. Marines retook the city one block at a time. The Marines retook the Treasury building, the university, the hospital, the Provincial Headquarters and, finally, the citadel. On February 26, 1968, the city of Hue was declared secure. U.S. forces remained another week to ensure the city’s safety. Marine casualties were 142 dead and 857 wounded. While they held the city the North Vietnamese executed 5,000 civilian political enemies.
Here is why talk of ‘Quagmires’ is unhelpful to the war effort.
The Battle for Hue, although only one of over one hundred different attacks of the Tet Offensive of 1968, had a negative impact on the will of both the American people and their political leadership. Hue marked a revolution in the coverage of war by modern mass media. It was the first time Americans could and watch an ongoing battle from their living room on the evening news. Hue was a television bonanza for almost a month. When North Vietnamese leadership directed that Hue be held for at least seven days, it was clearly not their intent to win a tactical battle, but to strike at the strategic center of gravity-in this case, the will of the American people. Although the battle for Hue was a tactical victory for the U.S., the North Vietnamese had achieved their strategic goal of making the American public question the costs associated with the war.
When you refer to Iraq as a quagmire, you completely discount the progress made in twenty months: The defeat of Saddam in 3 weeks. The transition to an interim gov’t in a year plus, which took place by the Iraqis choosing their own representatives. The commitment to an interim constitution. The ability to get the Kurds on board despite their desire to be independent. The abject defeat of the “Shi’ite uprising” in Najaf and elsewhere, which included a political element to the victory. The securing of Fallujah in about one week (secure is a military term that means taking control of the city, not the cessation of violence. New York City encounters violence daily, yet is secure.) The training of Iraq’s security forces to fight their own battles (this has taken longer than I like, but it showing results).
The goal of this insurgency, just as was the goal of the North Vietnamese, is to wear down America’s will. You overlook the successes in Iraq, refuse to recognize the hard job in front of us, and that it requires sacrifice, and therefore play right into the hands of those that offer nothing but death, terrorism and cultural nihilism.
Ryan, see my prior update as well. Iran and Syria are covert supporters of the Iraqi insurgency, unlike Russia and China, who were overt supporters that provided arms (fighter planes, missile defenses, material) and diplomatic support. There is no “safe haven” in Iraq for the insurgency, as there was in North Vietnam for the VC, nor a legitimate government for the Iraqis.
In this respect, the Afghanistan/Soviet Union analogy is much more apt. However, again, in Afghanistan, the mujahedeen had the active backing of the United States and Pakistan. Syria and Iran’s covert backing of the insurgency in Iraq demonstrates they fear an American retaliation for their actions, and this limits the level of support they can provide.
I understand that, although the term “quagmire” is accurate, it does downplay the blood and sweat of many. I will refer to it as a “difficult situation with limited progess” from now on. There has been some progess but it is relatively small (so far at least). The Fallujah effort definitely did help a lot. I just don’t see how this thing is going to be resolved in 2 months when Fallujah isn’t even mopped up yet and there are several other cities out there full of insurgents.
I agree that the prospect of free elections in Iraq is a Good Thing, and is fiercely opposed by all the insurgents and (presumably) many Sunnis.
But let’s look down the road a bit. Suppose we have a totally free and fair election. It’s pretty clear that the Shiites will win the largest share of power. How much is that?
Specifically, what protections exist for the rights of minorities in Iraq? The devil is in the details here, and I personally do not know the details on this. Do you?
Remember that when the Pilgrims and the Puritans came to America, they were seeking the freedom to practice their religion, but they certainly didn’t favor “freedom of religion”. They wanted the power to compell everyone to worship in their way. It was only odd ducks like Roger Williams in Rhode Island and William Penn in Pennsylvania who believed in actual tolerance of multiple religions. I doubt that we can expect better in Iraq, even centuries later.
So, the Shiites get to control the Iraqi government, and will quite likely want to have an Islamic government. They may very well want to oppress their minorities. And they really are the majority, so if their democracy works by majority rule, they get to rule.
If that’s not to happen, and minority rights will be protected, who says so? And by what authority?
Maybe it’s already been taken care of, in some way I am not aware of, in which case I look forward to being educated on this.
Cheerfully yours, as always.
There was a lot of anger here about the video of the Marine shooting the Iraqi captive. Here is Kevin Sites’ side of the story: http://www.kevinsites.net/.
This is his regular blog, and his “Open Letter to Devil Dogs of the 3.1” is currently the lead article. If you get to this late, or he updates his site, you may have to page down a ways. It’s worth reading.
Beard,
I read a good article on this a while back but cannot locate it. Let me try to sum this up briefly, I hope you will trust me on this as I am short on time at the moment. The interim constituion provides for tolerance towards all religions as well as minority rights. The Kurds and some Shi’ite parties insisted on this. These rights are supposed to be carried over to the constitution that is drawn up after elections. As far as the Shi’ites are concerned, they are not a homogenous group any more than Christians in America are. There are different sects, as well as secular Shi’ites. This is why there was so much jockeying to get positions on the interim gov’t and get the lists of candidates approved. The the only way for the groups to get their slates approved was to put up a wide range of representatives.
Off the top of my head, I can think of Sistani’s Shi’tes, Badr, and SCIRI as the main Shi’ite organizations. Sistani is the most respected (I think senior as well) Shi’ite leader in Iraq, and he does not advocate an Iranian style theocracy or any theocracy at all. He is an advocate of democracy. If my memory serves me, he does not promote clerical involvement in government as well.
It is wrong for us to assume that just because Shi’ites make up 60% of the population, a religious Shi’ite political group will get 60% of the power.
If I find that article later tonight I will link to it.
I read Sites’ side of it earlier today, and am not impressed. He did know how the Arab media would use this? Please. He knew full well what would happen once Al Jazeera got their hands on this video.
Bill wrote: “The interim constitution provides for tolerance towards all religions as well as minority rights. The Kurds and some Shi’ite parties insisted on this. These rights are supposed to be carried over to the constitution that is drawn up after elections.”
Glad to hear it. Hope it works out in practice.
The only really weak part of Sites’s open letter is the point that Bill mentioned. Other than that, I think he did a decent job of setting up the situation and explaining the difficult decision he made. I’m as sick about the whole affair as anyone. I really do believe we’re the good guys. I also believe Sites did the right thing by not destroying that video. He faced a real professional/ethical dilemma, and he chose to make the hard, but correct decision. I just wish the release was better controlled. Al Jazeera’s version had faces and names in it, and who knows what context they placed the scene in.
As an aside–how much valuable footage has Al Jazeera contributed to the news pool? I mean I know they do a great job playing bin Laden, al Zarquawi, and beheading videos; but what about actual video that they shoot?
Don’t assume the shi’a Muslims are behind the US. Occupation will not work in the long run. The will of the US military will falter. Israel learned this the hard way in south Lebanon after 22 years. Who won? Hezbollah and the people back them 100% because they broke Israel’s back in Lebanon territory.
By the way:
Cpl.A.Bock said on Sunday November 21, 2004:
“I am sorry to tell you that Brig. Gen Mark Kimmitt was KIA just about two months ago in an ambush on the road to Baghdad airport. The info is still classified but I don’t care, I lost both of my legs in a IED.”
Ryan,
I realize you are being cute with the definition of quagmire. Haha. If the items I mentioned to you are not progress, then explain to me what would be. Would you rate the occupations of Germany and Japan as quagmires? You should obtain an understanding of military and occupation history before you quickly make judgments about quagmires.
Tom F.
My undestanding is that Al Jazeera has provided some footage of their own.
JR,
The israelies were not chased out of Lebanon, they unwisely withdrew under the leadership of Ehud Barak thinking this would help them obtain peace. You make the mistake of treating all Shi’ites as adherents to Hezbollah.
Israel has a much much lower tolerance for losing soldiers than we do. But I can’t say I accept your “unwisely withdrew” comment. That sounds like Reagan saying the US made a “tactical” withdrawal from Lebanon after the Lebanese successfully took out several hundred of our soldiers (I believe it was) with a suicide bomb-truck.
By the way, there are reports that we only have 60% of Fallujah, not all of it as CNN (the “trusted” news source) may say. And we are being hit from the rear as well. And that we have resorted to using chemicals in Fallujah because of our higher than reported casualties. If you don’t believe it, I don’t care either. You can continue watching CNN or FOX.
Were using chemical weapons…. losing in Fallujah. Sounds like someone likes to read Jihad Unspun. Even Al Jazeera isn’t that far out. Enjoy your alternate reality.