Funmurphys: the Blog

The Triumph of Hope over Experience

Posts Tagged Iraq

The Miasma All Around

Jun 23

Posted by Kevin Murphy in The War on Terror | No Comments

I have to like the title of this article: CIA says Iraq is now a terrorist training ground. Hello, McFly, as opposed to when Saddam was terrorist-in-chief of the place? 

The lead sentance grabs your attention: “The CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, a U.S. counterterrorism official said on Wednesday.”

At least you only have to go to paragraph 3 to see when this international threat will materialize: “Once the insurgency ends, Islamic militants are likely to disperse as highly organized battle-hardened combatants capable of operating throughout the Arab-speaking world and in other regions including Europe.”

That’s right, after the terrorists get beat in Iraq, then they’ll disperse and be an interational threat. Um, so we have the Islamic radicals that went to Afganistan in the 80’s and fought for the winning side being less lethal than the Islamic radicals who are going to Iraq and fighting for the losing side? Am I missing something here? There were a lot of Islamic radicals after Afganistan because they were on the winning team; more were attracted following the war there to be Islamic radicals because they were on the winning team, and then they followed it up with successful actions in Chechnya. Losing two wars, in Afganistan and in Iraq, is not a winning strategy for long term success.

I also have trouble with “Iraq has become a magnet for Islamic militants similar to Soviet-occupied Afghanistan two decades ago and Bosnia in the 1990s, U.S. officials say.” Again, the difference is that the militants are dying in far greater numbers and proportions in Iraq than they did in Afganistan two decades ago – it’s not more than a magnet, it’s a mass graveyard for militants.

Once the insurgency ends, the Islamic milititants are most likely dead; it will be much harder to recruit people to be suicide bombers as a mass murderer in the name of Allah will have lost a lot of zest. And let’s not forget the flip side to this — there will be two countries, Afganistan and Iraq, that will have anti-terrorist forces that will be well motivated and working with us to continue to beat forces they’ve already won victories over. If I had to pick, I’d pick the winners over the losers as allies in this long struggle. But I guess that doesn’t make good copy.

A tip of the hat to Take Back The News for the article.

Tags:

The Post Is Like A Box Of …

Jun 6

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Media Criticism, The War on Terror | No Comments

The St. Louis Post Dispatch (“stupid is as stupid does”) runs a stupid article on the war in Iraq that asks the question “Are we losing because US casualities are increasing?” and unsurprisingly only interviews people who say yes or maybe.

The premise is stupid and if you think but a moment you can figure it for yourself. In the spirit of science, perform this Gedankenexperiment: A war starts and ends. The casualites for one side starts at zero before the war, increases, and then decreases to zero at the end of the war. Does this describe the winner or the loser? It describes both, doesn’t it? So when casualties were increasing did this mean one side was losing? You can’t tell, can you. And it’s not just a thought experiment, but it’s the reality of war — look at US casualty figures from WWII and you’ll discover that they increase dramatically year after year until 1945 – and had US soldiers not been saved by the deus ex machina of the A-bomb from invading Japan, they would have been highest of all in 1945. So using one side’s casualty figures as a proxy for who’s winning is both theoretically and practically an error.

But even if you think the figures indicate who’s winning or losing, isn’t there something(s) missing from the story? Like shouldn’t we use numbers for coalition forces, not just US? And shouldn’t we include Iraqi figures as well? Wouldn’t that give a more complete picture? And shouldn’t we compare the two side’s casualty figures? I mean if you think these figures have meaning, shouldn’t you be comparing the two sides?

You’d also have to know what kind of stratagies the two sides have picked. Are we fighting a battle (or battles) of attrition, maneuver, position, what? What kind of strategy is the enemy fighting? If their goal is to kill enough Americans to cause war fatigue at home, isn’t reporting only American casualties the stupid thing to do? If you run articles that only mention or highlight failure are you really being objective, cynical, or stupid? Is there any mention in this article of the comparitive strategies and what they would mean when looking at casualty figures? This is it:

“While Americans are hoping that the training of Iraqi forces will mean the end of a major U.S. presence, Abenheim says the plan harks back to a failed strategy in America’s last major war. 

“It does suggest Vietnamization,” he said, speaking of the U.S. policy during the Vietnam War to train the South Vietnamese to protect their own country so American soldiers could slide into the background. “

More stupidity. The failed policy in Vietnam was Americanization – the policy persued by Kennedy and especially Johnson along with a strategy of attrition picked by Westmorland. Those were the strategies that failed and in so doing so turned so many people against the war. Vietnamization and positional warfare were successes under Nixon and Abrams. South Vietnam fell because when invaded for a second time after the peace treaty was signed, the US cut off not only all aid, but any purchases of weapons and ammunition as well. The penultimate tragedy of Vietnam was this very real stab in the back of an ally. (The ultimate tragedy is the floodgates of death and misery that were opened on South Vietnam following its occupation by the tyrannical communists of the North).

To further prove the writers don’t understand what they’re writing about, they back up the assertion that iraqification is a losing strategy with a quote by a wounded guardsmen:

“”It doesn’t matter how many troops you have there or what they do, you are never going to beat an insurgency like that,” said Oversmith, now a police officer in Smithville. 

“In their view, they think they are being conquered. If they think they are being conquered, they’ll fight for years and years. Look how long the Vietnamese fought.” 

Gee, you’d think putting in place a democratically elected government commanding Iraqi troops that do the day to day policing and fighting would be the way to eliminate that conquered feeling.

And an earlier quote is also priceless:

“The evidence to date suggests that U.S. military officers don’t really understand the sources of the insurgency or how to blunt its effects,” he said. “For example, every day we hear stories of suicide bombers killing innocent Iraqis, but we have no detailed insight into the recruiting mechanisms or the training to produce suicide bombers in such large numbers.”

But the article doesn’t consider the effect of the suicide bombings on the Iraqi people, and how they view war, and how it has soured a lot of onetime supporters and fence sitters on the so called insurgency. Can anyone cite an actual successful suicide bombing campaign? The only suicide bombing that worked was against Spain and it took only one attack; the ones against Russia and Israel have been failures. Oh, it’s been successful in capturing media attention and killing innocents, but that’s about it.

One of the things I do wonder about, and which isn’t covered in the article, is what is taking so long in standing up a viable Iraqi military. We’re seeing it now, but what took so long? And then I harken back to WWII (again), and I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. In Europe, it was clear that the decisive blow would be an invasion of France and then on to Germany, yet the first step was to secure North Africa where 13 long months after entry the American Army suffered a stinging defeat at Kasserine Pass. After North Africa, the next stepping stone was Sicily, then Italy where Allied forces would be bogged down for the rest of the war. It wasn’t for 2 and a half years after the US entered the war that France was invaded and the war was really taken to the Germans (and American casualties really mounted). The new Iraqi army in a little over 2 years has begun the decisive battles for Iraq – not bad by American historical standards.

The most appalling thing about this appalling article is that it is so American centric.  I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: 
Right now, successfully replacing a murdering, terrorist supporting dictator with a half way decent, reasonably representative government in Iraq is critical to the US, but it is with no exaggeration a matter of life and death for Iraqis. For decades, they haven’t held their own futures in their own hands. Right now, they do. We can support them to the best of our abilities, but ultimately, what Iraq becomes is up to the Iraqis.

Tags:

Best Minute of the Super Bowl

Feb 7

Posted by Sean Murphy in Sean, The War on Terror, TV | 1 Comment

Anheuser-Busch’s ad honoring returning Iraq war veterans. It was part of their Here’s to the Heros program that offered free admission to active military personnel (active duty, active reserve, ready reserve service member or National Guardsman) and dependents at a variety of theme parks around the US. It seems we have learned some lessons from the Vietnam War and treatment of veterans.

Tags: ,

At Least We Agree On Something

Oct 16

Posted by Carl Drews in The War on Terror | No Comments

The following story on CNN.com:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.main/index.html

included the interesting quotation below. This person represents the insurgents in Fallujah.

A representative involved in talks to bring peace to Falluja said Saturday that the group won’t continue discussions with the interim government until the arrested head of the delegation is freed and U.S. warplanes stop bombing the city.

Sheikh Khalid al-Jumaily, speaking on behalf of the Falluja group, made the remarks.

Stated another way, Sheikh Khalid al-Jumaily is promising that if the U.S. Air Force continues to bomb Fallujah, his terrorists will not try to worm their way out of the predicament they’re in through “negotiations”.

“Is there a downside to this?” -Hades, in the Disney movie Hercules.

It sounds like a perfectly acceptable arrangement to me. And I’ll bet the Marines agree.

I hope the Sheikh doesn’t change his mind.

Tags:

Lucky or Smart?

Oct 12

Posted by Kevin Murphy in International Politics | No Comments

I have never understood why the left has obsessed over “stockpiles of WMD” in Iraq. Now we know that Saddam didn’t have had any when we invaded. While the left seems to think this somehow invalidates the decision to go to war, despite the fact that WMD “stockpiles” were not the reason we went to war, I think it shows good fortune on our part. I mean, the other possibilities are that Saddam would have unleashed WMD during the invasion when it was clear that we would depose him, resulting in at best horrific civilian casualties amongst the unprotected Iraqi people, or that he would have resumed making WMD when the crumbling sanctions soon fell.

Tags:

It’s Coldest Before the Dawn

Oct 7

Posted by Carl Drews in The War on Terror | 2 Comments

I just handed in a research paper on the sandstorm that hit Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom last year. You’ll all get to read this paper when I post it on the web after the professor grades it. The dust storm was most intense on March 25, 2003, so I looked up some old news accounts of what was going on then. Basically, the U.S. Army and Marines were approaching Baghdad, and the Iraqi Republican Guard were getting into position to defend the city. What was most interesting to find were the opinions expressed by correspondents and bloggers on both sides of the conflict.

There was a lot of pessimism on the coalition side. Many observers thought the siege of Baghdad would be long and brutal. The media worried that a lot of Iraqi civilians would get killed, that every block of the city would be defended.

There was also a lot of bravado from the Iraqi government, and not just from Information Minister Mohammad Saeed al-Sahaf. Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed had this to say (posted on March 28):

Asked what kind of battle he expected, Defense Minister Ahmed said: “Baghdad is the cradle of civilization. Iraqis inherited this history from their forefathers. They will defend this inheritance in a way that will satisfy God.” 

“God willing, Baghdad will be impregnable. We will fight to the end and everywhere. History will record how well Iraqis performed in defense of their capital,” Ahmed said. 

Ahmed said that the U.S. supply lines were overstretched and reached as far as 300 miles and called a sandstorm that slowed the U.S. push northwards toward Baghdad in recent days “a gift from God.” 

You can read the rest of the story at rense.com.

Remember that? It was only last year. I was kind of discouraged myself at that point, wondering how we would go about capturing Baghdad. I even discussed some options with a former tank commander friend of mine. 

As it turned out, Ahmed was exactly right. History did record how well the Republican Guard performed in defense of their capital. I saw pictures of Republican Guard soldiers stripping off their uniforms and running away in their underwear. 

If the sandstorm was “a gift from God,” then Ahmed’s expression of theistic meteorology did not work out the way he expected. General Tommy Franks and his staff made a military move during the sandstorm that drastically altered the war in our favor. That’s a teaser – you’ll have to read about it in my paper. The historical facts show that U.S. forces soon captured Baghdad after a series of armed incursions. The statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square was toppled on April 9. 

The point is this: On March 25, 2003, things looked pretty bleak in Iraq. But a major military turning point came during those few days, and Saddam Hussein in bronze fell to the ground just two weeks later. Sometimes when things look the worst, there comes a turning point that nobody realizes until later. 

The news from Iraq was depressing until about a week ago. It seemed that our side was losing cities to the insurgents, as more and more “no-go zones” developed. I think we were actually losing progress, as defined by the measures discussed here several months ago. 

Take courage, my friends! Najaf is peaceful once again, even though too many of the al-Sadr militants got away. The shrine’s okay. Samarra has been re-liberated from anti-Iraq forces. By now many Iraqis have had it up to here with militants turning their neighborhoods into battlegrounds. I expect Iraqis have also realized that people who sabotage pipelines aren’t doing squat to defend Islam or fight for Iraq or improve anyone’s lives. Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi is holding tough. And most people who make the decisions have recognized that Kevin was right back in April when he said that the right thing to do in Fallujah is to take back the city from the terrorists, not withdraw. 

If John Kerry is elected president he will follow basically the same plan in Iraq as Bush is following now. Kerry says he will execute the plan better, and any voter can decide if they believe him or not. The Democrats made the choice of Kerry over Howard Dean in the primaries, and with that choice they rejected the option to withdraw from Iraq. Tony Karon at TIME Magazine can complain that Kerry doesn’t offer a choice on Iraq, but that choice is off the table now because it was already rejected. No matter what happens in November, America plans to finish the job that we started in Iraq. And finish it right. 

Thank you, Tony Blair and the United Kingdom and Australia for being there with us all the way! Thank you also to the other coalition countries. 

By my count progress in Iraq is at about 85%. Progress is at 50% automatically because Allawi is in charge and Iraq is sovereign. When I look at the map of Iraq I see about 30% of the population and land as “no-go zones”, meaning 70% is relatively stable and functional. So 50% + 70%*50% = 85%. You do the math. 

Meteorologically Speaking: 

The old saying that “it’s darkest before the dawn” is incorrect. Night is relatively constant in darkness, except for the hour after sundown and before sunrise when blue photons are scattering over the horizon and lighting up things a bit. Surface temperature pretty much follows a sinusoidal curve during the day, with the peak temperature at about 2pm. Surface temperatures are coldest before the dawn because the earth’s surface undergoes radiative cooling all night, at pretty much a constant rate. 

So it really is coldest just before the dawn.

Tags: , ,

What Is Truth

Jul 7

Posted by Kevin Murphy in The War on Terror | No Comments

It used to be that “military intelligence” was the standard cite for an oxymoron. “Journalism ethics” has taken over.

On day 3, a quagmire was declared. Ever since Saddam government’s collapsed, the situation has been worsening, the insurgency intensifying. I used to wonder how much worse it can get. I used to think it was slanted reporting by the media. But now I see that only 18% of Iraqis think it can get any worse, while 64% think it can only get better. Well, that’s one interpretation of the numbers.

Tags:

Another Day Dawns

Jun 29

Posted by Kevin Murphy in The War on Terror | No Comments

And so it begins. Sovereignty has been turned over to an Iraqi government. There are those who say this is a sham; others think it will bring real change. I think even the prior announcement of a hand over made a difference. To the Iraqi people, the insurgents (I don’t like the word but I don’t have a better one) are becoming more clearly the enemy, more foreign and less home grown; American soldiers are becoming less occupiers and more temporary order keepers; political progress is becoming less just promises and more concrete. These are all good things. The desired end state for Iraq isn’t that we’re loved and so then we leave; the desired end state is that a representative, liberal Iraq stands on its own two feet, then we leave, and then (maybe) we’re loved. How long did the love last in France and Germany?

Tags:

Iraq Reprise

Jun 23

Posted by Kevin Murphy in The War on Terror | No Comments

Here’s something I wrote way back in November of last year:

“The United States will leave Iraq one day; the only question isn’t so much when but under what conditions. Our desire is to leave behind a functioning government complete with armed forces that will be able to defeat the insurgents. It would be nice if the insurgents were wiped out before we left, but not necessary. In that sense, US troops are fighting a holding action. The insurgents would like us to leave before that goal is achieved, and then to defeat the government we leave behind. So the insurgents have to do two things to win – demoralize the US, and demoralize a majority of the Iraqi’s themselves. Thus they are attacking not just US soldiers, but foreign groups (such as the UN and NGOs) that will help the fledgling Iraqi government, and the Iraqi forces (mostly police) we are constituting for the Iraqi government.

At this point, there are now more Iraqi’s under arms fighting with us than there are American troops in Iraq, and the number of Iraqi’s under arms grows daily. Soon there will be more Iraqi’s under arms for the government than there ever were US soldiers in Iraq. So the attacks against Iraqi police are important to the insurgents to keep that day from coming – not from killing that many police, but from killing enough that too few ordinary Iraqi’s become police, or soldiers, or guards. So the insurgents have to attack now before the Iraqi police and military overwhelm them.”

I think it still holds up pretty well today. This is why I’m not too worried about all the day to day results. The Iraqis don’t have to love us; they just have to be willing to seize their own future and build a nation that is good enough and start the long process of steady improvement. Iraq isn’t a disaster now; it was a disaster when Saddam was in charge and it’s been getting better ever since he was removed.

And you can’t rely on a cursory examination of the press to provide information; they’ve been wrong and biased on all things Iraq since day three when a sandstorm slowed up our advance. A more balanced view is provided by doing some digging. The press isn’t just in the tank, they are the tank.

Tags:

We’re Only Thinking Of You

May 14

Posted by Kevin Murphy in The War on Terror | No Comments

Speaking of photos, what happened to showing pictures of flag draped coffins at Dover? Oh yeah, that was so last week. The press got much better pictures from Abu Ghraib to show that the war is a failure in Iraq. Getting the Dover photos was sooo important the press showed them to us once. Can you imagine how important that makes the stuff they never show us, and how insignificant the stuff they show us all the time?

UPDATE: I have joined my first Beltway Traffic Jam

Tags: ,