Cheesetastics Anonymous

OK, I know it’s difficult to tell from the MSM coverage of what’s going on in Iraq, but something good has to be going on over there – because Kofi Annan and the U.N. are trying to take credit…

There’s Progress in Iraq

By Kofi Annan

Tuesday, June 21, 2005; Page A21

Today I am traveling to Brussels to join representatives of more than 80 governments and institutions in sending a loud and clear message of support for the political transition in Iraq.

A year ago, in Resolution 1546, the U.N. Security Council set out the timetable that Iraq, with the assistance of the United Nations and the international community, was expected to fulfill. The Brussels conference is a chance to reassure the Iraqi people that the international community stands with them in their brave efforts to rebuild their country, and that we recognize how much progress has been made in the face of daunting challenges.

Elections were held in January, on schedule. Three months later the Transitional National Assembly endorsed the transitional government. The dominant parties have begun inclusive negotiations, in which outreach to Sunni Arabs is a major theme. A large number of Sunni groups and parties are now working to make sure that their voices are fully heard in the process of drafting a new constitution, and that they participate fully in the referendum to approve it and the elections slated for December.

Indeed, just last week an agreement was achieved to expand the committee drafting the constitution to ensure full participation by the Sunni Arab community. This agreement, which the United Nations helped to facilitate, should encourage all Iraqis to press ahead with the drafting of the constitution by the Aug. 15 deadline.

As the process moves forward, there will no doubt be frustrating delays and difficult setbacks. But let us not lose sight of the fact that all over Iraq today, Iraqis are debating nearly every aspect of their political future.

The United Nations has been strongly urged by a wide spectrum of Iraqis to help them maintain momentum, as we did with January’s elections. They have sought our support in constitution-making, in preparing for the October referendum and the December elections, and in coordinating donor assistance for the political transition as well as reconstruction and development.

Our response has been prompt and resolute. We have set up a donor coordination mechanism in Baghdad, deployed a Constitutional Support Unit, and established an active and collaborative relationship with the assembly’s constitutional committee. Today more than 800 U.N. personnel – both local and international, including security staff – are serving in Iraq in the U.N. assistance mission.

In a media-hungry age, visibility is often regarded as proof of success. But this does not necessarily hold true in Iraq. Even when, as with last week’s agreement, the results of our efforts are easily seen by all, the efforts themselves must be undertaken quietly and away from the cameras.

Whether U.N. assistance proves effective will depend largely on the Iraqis. Only they can write a constitution that is inclusive and fair. The United Nations cannot and will not draft it for them. Nor do we need to, because Iraqis are more than capable of doing it themselves. They would welcome advice, but they will decide which advice is worth taking.

As important as particular constitutional provisions is the underlying accommodation between Iraq’s diverse communities. My special representative, Ashraf Qazi, is encouraging and facilitating the delicate task of political outreach to all Iraqi communities to promote a truly inclusive transition. His work, too, is necessarily carried out away from the media glare, as he seeks to build the trust and confidence among the various constituencies that will be the key to the successful transition envisaged by Security Council Resolution 1546.

There are, of course, those who wish to exacerbate communal tensions and prevent the emergence of a democratic, pluralist, stable Iraq. They seek to capitalize on the serious difficulties faced by ordinary people, and to exploit popular anger and resentment to promote hatred and violence. Their work is seen on the streets of Iraq every day.

I do not believe that security measures alone can provide a sufficient response to this situation. For such measures to be successful, they must be part of a broad-based and inclusive strategy that embraces the political transition, development, human rights and institution-building, so that all of Iraq’s communities see that they stand to be winners in the new Iraq. These efforts must be underpinned by steps to deal with Iraq’s tortured past – a past that still exacts revenge and will, if not addressed, blight future generations. This is difficult for any society in transition, let alone one as dangerous as some areas of Iraq are today.

In aid of the transition, the United Nations is at work, both inside and outside the country, to support donor coordination, capacity-building of Iraqi ministries and civil society organizations, and delivery of basic services. Reconstruction of schools, water-treatment and waste-treatment plants, power plants and transmission lines, food assistance to children, mine clearing and aid to hundreds of thousands of returning refugees and internally displaced persons – all of these activities occur every day in Iraq under U.N. leadership.

The Iraqi people continue to endure a painful and difficult transition, and they still have a long and tough road ahead. The United Nations is privileged and determined to walk it with them. In doing so, we serve not only the people of Iraq, but the peoples of all nations.

The writer is secretary general of the United Nations.

Also, it seems that people talking to soldiers in Iraq are painting a brighter picture of progress than are others (note that the author is pretty hard on the administration for not communicating effectively with the public):

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-6_21_05_AB.html

June 21, 2005
My Return to Baghdad
By Austin Bay

BAGHDAD – This trip to Iraq is deja vu with a difference.

I served here as a soldier, and returning as a writer in part explains the change in perspective. This trip my job is assessment and analysis, not action. Even with a fast-paced itinerary that takes us to Fallujah, Tal Afar and Kirkuk, there is more time to reflect.

Today, the summer heat is just as hard as it was a year ago, the sand haze in the air just as thick. But the Baghdad of June 2005 is not the Baghdad I left in September 2004.

“Metrics” is the military buzzword – how do we measure progress or regress in Iraq? The piles of bricks around Iraqi homes is a positive. Downtown cranes sprout over city-block-sized construction projects. The negatives are all too familiar – terror bombs and the slaughter of Iraqi citizens.

Last year – on July 2, I recall – I saw six Iraqi National Guardsmen manning a position beneath a freeway overpass. It was the first time I saw independently deployed Iraqi forces. Now, I see senior Iraqi officers in the hallways of Al Faw Palace conducting operational liaison with U.S. and coalition forces. I hear reports of the Iraqi Army conducting independent street-clearing and neighborhood search operations. Brigadier Gen. Karl Horst of US Third Infantry Division told me about an Iraqi battalion’s success on the perennially challenging Haifa Street.

In February of this year, under the direction of an Iraqi colonel who is rapidly earning a reputation as Iraq’s Rudy Giuliani, the battalion drove terrorists from this key Baghdad drag. Last year, Haifa Street was a combat zone where US and Iraqi security forces showed up in Robo-Cop garb – helmets, armor, Bradleys, armored Humvees. Horst told me that he and his Iraqi counterpart now have tea in a sidewalk cafe along the once notorious boulevard. Of course, Abu Musab al Zarqawi’s suicide bombers haunt this fragile calm.

This return visit to Iraq, however, spurs thoughts of America – to be specific, thoughts about America’s will to pursue victory. I don’t mean the will of US forces in the field. Wander around with a bunch of Marines for a half hour, spend 15 minutes with National Guardsmen from Idaho, and you will have no doubts about American military capabilities or the troops’ will to win.

But our weakness is back home, in front of the TV, on the cable squawk shows, on the editorial page of The New York Times, in the political gotcha games of Washington, D.C.

It seems America wants to get on with its Electra-Glide life, that Sept. 10 sense of freedom and security, without finishing the job. The military is fighting, the Iraqi people are fighting, but where is the US political class? The Bush administration has yet to ask the American people – correction, has yet to demand of the American people – the sustained, shared sacrifice it takes to win this long, intricate war of bullets, ballots and bricks.

Bullets go bang, and even CBS understands bullets. Ballots make an impression – in terms of this war’s battlespace, the January Iraqi elections were World War II’s D-Day and Battle of the Bulge combined. But the bricks – the building of Iraq, Afghanistan and the other hard corners where this war is and will be fought – that’s a delicate and decades-long challenge.

Given the vicious enemy we face, five years, perhaps 15 years from now, occasional bullets and bombs will disrupt the political and economic building. This is the Bush administration’s biggest strategic mistake – a failure to tap the reservoir of American willingness 9-11 produced.

One afternoon in December 2001, my mother told me she remembered being a teenager in 1942 and tossing a tin can on a wagon that rolled past the train station in her hometown. Mom said she knew that the can she tossed didn’t add much to the war effort, but she felt that in some small, token perhaps, but very real way, she was contributing to the battle.

“The Bush administration is going to make a terrible mistake if it does not let the American people get involved in this war. Austin, we need a war bond drive. This matters, because this is what it will take.”

She was right then, and she’s right now.

And of course, the bi-weekly round-up of good news from Iraq, for the two weeks ending June 13, 2005, courtesy of Arthur Chrenkoff:

This link has lots of internal links and quotes, so I suggest following it and reading to your heart’s content.

You know… with ongoing casualties, many thousand troops and billions of dollars going into this project, there had damned well better be some progress going on.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
And of course, the bi-weekly round-up of good news from Iraq, for the two weeks ending June 13, 2005, courtesy of Arthur Chrenkoff:

This link has lots of internal links and quotes, so I suggest following it and reading to your heart’s content.[/quote]

Thanks BB. That was a good read.

BB,

Good stuff.

Wanted to re-post a few key passages:

"But our weakness is back home, in front of the TV, on the cable squawk shows, on the editorial page of The New York Times, in the political gotcha games of Washington, D.C.

It seems America wants to get on with its Electra-Glide life, that Sept. 10 sense of freedom and security, without finishing the job. The military is fighting, the Iraqi people are fighting, but where is the US political class? The Bush administration has yet to ask the American people – correction, has yet to demand of the American people – the sustained, shared sacrifice it takes to win this long, intricate war of bullets, ballots and bricks.

Bullets go bang, and even CBS understands bullets. Ballots make an impression – in terms of this war’s battlespace, the January Iraqi elections were World War II’s D-Day and Battle of the Bulge combined. But the bricks – the building of Iraq, Afghanistan and the other hard corners where this war is and will be fought – that’s a delicate and decades-long challenge.

Given the vicious enemy we face, five years, perhaps 15 years from now, occasional bullets and bombs will disrupt the political and economic building. This is the Bush administration’s biggest strategic mistake – a failure to tap the reservoir of American willingness 9-11 produced."

JeffR

Hear, hear, Jeffy!

That is just too damn true, isn’t it?

The latest round-up of good news from Arthur Chrenkoff, for the two weeks ending today (6/27/05):

Lots of internal links – check it out.

Cheney said the other day that he thinks the insurgency is in its death throes. Yet Rumsfeld says today it could go on for another decade. Public support for the war is at an all-time low. Three days ago, more US women were killed in combat in one day than in any other day since a hospital ship was kamikazied by the Japanese in WWII. April had twice as many suicide car bombs as any month previous. Insurgent bomb-making technique is apparently getting better all the time. Iraqi police are still getting slaughtered by the dozen. 1729 Americans are dead, plus 200 allies.
Are we winning?
Cheesetastic.

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Cheney said the other day that he thinks the insurgency is in its death throes. Yet Rumsfeld says today it could go on for another decade. Public support for the war is at an all-time low. Three days ago, more US women were killed in combat in one day than in any other day since a hospital ship was kamikazied by the Japanese in WWII. April had twice as many suicide car bombs as any month previous. Insurgent bomb-making technique is apparently getting better all the time. Iraqi police are still getting slaughtered by the dozen. 1729 Americans are dead, plus 200 allies.
Are we winning?
Cheesetastic.[/quote]

Interesting post the other day from the Belmont Club on this topic:

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/06/quagmire.html

Quagmire

Ted Kennedy and Donald Rumsfeld exchanged one liners over whether Iraq was an American win or an insurgent victory. The Australian Broadcast Corporation reports:

[i]TED KENNEDY: Secretary Rumsfeld, as you know, we are in serious trouble in Iraq, and this war has been consistently and grossly mismanaged, and we are now in a seemingly intractable quagmire. Our troops are dying, and there really is no end in sight.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, that is quite a statement. First, let me say that there isn’t a person at this table who agrees with you that we’re in a quagmire, and that there’s no end in sight. The suggestion by you that people ? me or others ? are painting a rosy picture is false. I think that the comments you made are certainly yours to make, and I don’t agree with them.

TED KENNEDY: Well, my time has just expired, but Mr Secretary, I’m talking about the misjudgements and the mistakes that have been made, the series which I’ve mentioned. Those are on your watch. Isn’t it time for you to resign?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Senator, I have offered my resignation to the President twice, and he’s decided that he would prefer that he not accept it. And that’s his call.[/i]

Carl Levin and John Abizaid had exchanges of their own. From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation again.

[i]CARL LEVIN: General Abizaid, can you give us your assessment of the strength of the insurgency. Is it less strong, more strong, about the same strength as it was six months ago?

JOHN ABIZAID: Senator, I’d say?

CARL LEVIN: Could you put the mic right in front of you?

JOHN ABIZAID: In terms of comparison from six months ago, in terms of foreign fighters, I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago. In terms of the overall strength of the insurgency, I’d say it’s about the same as it was.

CARL LEVIN: So you wouldn’t agree with the statement that it’s ‘in its last throes’?

JOHN ABIZAID: I don’t know that I would make any comment about that, other than to say there’s a lot of work to be done against the insurgency.

CARL LEVIN: Well, the Vice-President has said it’s in its last throes. That’s the statement that the Vice President. Doesn’t sound to me from your testimony, or any other testimony here this morning, that it is in its last throes.

JOHN ABIZAID: I’m sure you’ll forgive me from criticising the Vice-President.

CARL LEVIN: I just want an honest assessment from you as to whether you agree with a particular statement of his, it’s not personal. I just want to know whether you agree with that assessment. It’s not a personal attack on him, any more than if he says that something is a fact and you disagree with it, we would expect you to say you disagree with it.

JOHN ABIZAID: I gave you my opinion of where we are. [/i]

So just where are we? From that set of exchanges above, we get the following headlines. General, Cheney at odds on Iraq ( http://www.freep.com/news/nw/iraq24e_20050624.htm ), Iraq insurgency still strong, general says ( http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050624/IRAQ24/TPInternational/Americas ), Iraq war an ‘intractable quagmire’: Ted Kennedy ( AM - Iraq war an 'intractable quagmire': Ted Kennedy ), ‘US not losing in Iraq’ ( http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,6119,2-10-1460_1726336,00.html ). One would think then, that we are on the Eve of Destruction. The Washington Post reports:

Abizaid noted that while confidence among U.S. forces in the field “has never been higher,” the political mood in Washington appears strikingly different. “I’ve never seen the lack of confidence greater,” he said. … Rumsfeld and the other military authorities attempted to present a picture of considerable progress in Iraq across not only military but also political and economic fronts. They said that despite a rise in enemy attacks since earlier this year, the number remains at about the same level as a year ago and at only about half of previous peaks. They said Iraqi security forces are becoming more capable, and Iraqi opinion polls showed more confidence in the forces and in the interim government. Additionally, Iraqi political authorities remain on track to draft a new constitution and elect a new national government by the end of the year, they said.

We are probably in politics as usual. Here’s the money quote from the Post. “There appeared to be little support on either the Senate or House armed services committees for setting a timetable to withdraw U.S. troops.” There would be lots of support for a withdrawal timetable if there were any substantial sense the US was being defeated. Then the discussion in the Senate moved on to a subject which indicated, in a backhanded way, where the Senators really thought things were going.

Arguing that something needs to be done to “change the current dynamic in Iraq,” Levin suggested added pressure on Iraqi authorities to keep to their schedule for a new constitution and national elections by warning them that failure would cause the United States “to rethink our presence there.”

Levin’s (D-Mich.) question accidentally suggested that there was a causal relationship between an American presence and a future Iraqi constitution and national elections, which would in turn imply that without OIF there would be no constitution and no elections. Well, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

And here is another good post analyzing overall progress:

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/06/whos-on-first.html

Who’s On First?

Glenn Reynolds links to Karl Zinmeister’s article in American Enterprise Online, The War is Over, and We Won where Zinmeister claims that:

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18615/article_detail.asp

Your editor returned to Iraq in April and May of 2005 for another embedded period of reporting. I could immediately see improvements compared to my earlier extended tours during 2003 and 2004. … With the exception of periodic flare-ups in isolated corners, our struggle in Iraq as warfare is over. Egregious acts of terror will continue – in Iraq as in many other parts of the world. But there is now no chance whatever of the U.S. losing this critical guerilla war.

Gregory Scoblete thinks it is premature to declare victory in Iraq because “guerilla wars” take decades to conclude ( http://gscobe.blogspot.com/2005/06/war-is-won-instapundit-links-to-this.html ); and since this one is only entering its third year, declaring the outcome makes as much sense as calling the result of basketball game in the first quarter. He further argues that by declaring the proceedings settled, Zinmeister is setting up the public for a cruel disappointment when the next flare-up occurs.

[i]Don’t get me wrong, I think on the whole, the trends are indeed positive in Iraq and that they can be sustained assuming continued American involvement and savvy leadership on behalf of Iraq’s political class. I hope Zinsmeister is correct, and I’m optimistic about the longer-term prospects for our success in Iraq. But I’m actually amazed that after “Mission Accomplished,” “cake walk” et. al. conservatives aren’t more reserved when declaring victory.

Indeed, Zinsmeister’s proclamations are irresponsible. Guerilla wars are notoriously long, bloody affairs. Expectation setting is crucial. Fault the media all you want for painting an unduly grim picture in Iraq, but isn’t flatly asserting that victory is at hand equally wrong-headed? Reading Zinsmeister, you’d be forgiven for thinking that (a) U.S. troops could begin coming home shortly, (b) that in a few more months things will be noticeably calmer, or (c) that no course corrections are necessary. When A and B don’t materialize, and it’s hard to think they will, people will rightly wonder whether they’ve been lied to or whether the people making such sweeping claims were spinning or ignorant of the facts. Then - and this is crucial - the public support needed for seeing the war through to a successful conclusion will erode even quicker.[/i]

What does it mean to win a war against guerilla insurgents? What does it mean for a guerilla insurgency to triumph? The one answer that is popularly advanced – one that is implicit in Scoblete’s argument – is that guerillas win if they simply remain in existence. This site lists more than 383 armed guerilla groups extant in the world today ( freelebanon.org | CAA record ). Clearly all of them exist and just clearly not all of them are triumphant. There are, for instance 27 armed guerilla groups in India, 9 in Britain (the most famous of which is the Irish Republican Army) and 11 in the United States. Yet no one asks whether it is premature to declare the Westminster Parliament in control of the Northern Ireland or wonder whether Los Matcheteros will take over the Washington DC. And the reason is simple: while the IRA and Los Matcheteros are still likely to exist in 2010, there is little or no chance that these organizations will seize state power in all or even part of Britain or the United States. Seizing state power over a definite territory is the explicit objective of nearly every guerilla armed force in the world today: if they can achieve that, they win. If they cannot achieve that and have no realistic prospect of ever achieving that, they are defeated, however long they may continue to exist.

Guerilla leaders themselves know this and invariably attempt to create a state-in-waiting in the course of their campaign based on an armed force, a united front of allies willing to support the guerilla’s political objectives and a hard leadership core in firm control of both. They also attempt to create micro-states in the course of insurgency usually styled “base areas” or “liberated zones”. Political influence, combat capability and territorial control are the real metrics of a successful guerilla campaign. The argument that mere existence or avoidance of defeat constitutes victory is hogwash: both the IRA and the Red Hand Commandos exist, but clearly the IRA is the more successful guerilla organization because it has a national united front, some combat capability and hard and diverse leadership core where the Red Hand Commandos do not. Even Al Qaeda, which some claim to be a creature of pure thought has sought to control territory in Afghanistan and spread its influence through Islamic “charities” while under the control of a central group of militants. It was, in other words, no different from any other classic guerilla organization.

While the Iraqi insurgents still retain the capability to kill significant numbers of people they are almost total losers by the traditional metric of guerilla warfare. First of all, by attacking civilians of every ethnic group and vowing to resubjugate the majority ethnic groups in the country they have at a stroke made creating a national united front against the United States a near impossibility. Second, there is a battle for supremacy among the insurgent leaders. The New York Times (hat tip: DL) reports:

Late Sunday night, American marines watching the skyline from their second-story perch in an abandoned house here saw a curious thing: in the distance, mortar and gunfire popped, but the volleys did not seem to be aimed at them. In the dark, one spoke in hushed code words on a radio, and after a minute found the answer. “Red on red,” he said, using a military term for enemy-on-enemy fire. … “There is a rift,” said the official, who requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the talks he had held. “I’m certain that the nationalist Iraqi part of the insurgency is very much fed up with the Jihadists grabbing the headlines and carrying out the sort of violence that they don’t want against innocent civilians.”

In that context, the battlefield victories of the US Armed Forces and its coalition allies are not the empty triumphs the press sometimes represents them to be but expressions of the complete strategic bankruptcy of the insurgency. No national united front; no united hard core of leadership; no victorious armed force. This in addition to no territory and increasingly, no money and what is there left? Well there is the ability to kill civilians and to avoid being totally exterminated by the Coalition; but that is not insurgent victory nor even the prospect of victory.

When Austin Bay, upon returning to Baghdad after the absence of a year notes that “the Baghdad of June 2005 is not the Baghdad I left in September 2004” because:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-6_21_05_AB.html

It was the first time I saw independently deployed Iraqi forces. Now, I see senior Iraqi officers in the hallways of Al Faw Palace conducting operational liaison with U.S. and coalition forces. I hear reports of the Iraqi Army conducting independent street-clearing and neighborhood search operations. Brigadier Gen. Karl Horst of US Third Infantry Division told me about an Iraqi battalion’s success on the perennially challenging Haifa Street.

It is not an irrelevant anecdotal fact. It is an observation that the new Iraqi government increasingly has a national united front; control of territory and an ever more potent army at its disposal. This condition has a name, although it may be irresponsible to use it.

As I have said before it is now up to the Iraqis to root out the terrorists.

There have been many positive signs from the Iraqis, but they need to accelerate the effort.