Fake Surge – Moon of Alabama

January 19, 2007

Fake Surge

Somehow I get the impression that the "surge" in Iraq is a fake move.

William Arkin remarked a few days ago:

Not only won’t there be one single and immediate deployment, but many of the supposed 20,000 are soldiers who are merely being extended in Iraq: it is like a corporate RIF where the numbers are attained through retirements and attrition. Others, moreover, are merely a surge on paper; the number of actual immediate fighters in Baghdad is only about half what the President suggests.

He has some details on unit deployments and some early parts of the surge, in reality units prolonged in their stay will already be home again when the last surge components arrive.

Today General Casey, who was against any surge at all, already announces its end:

Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq, said today that the additional troops being sent to Iraq could begin to be withdrawn by late summer if security conditions improve in Baghdad.

Improvement of the official security condition improvements that is – not of the number of dead bodies in the street.

Yesterday Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki claimed 400 al-Sadr fighters had been detained. Then there is a Prominent Sadr aide arrested in Baghdad. The arrested guy was a PR functionary for Sadr, not a "high-level, illegal armed group leader" as the U.S. military had propagandized.

Al-Sadr had ordered his forces to lay low. The surge announcement might well have been a good moment for him to hand a list of "unwanted supporters" to al-Maliki. Why should he get into the cleanup business himself when the U.S. is willing to and al-Maliki pressured to do such?

The official security conditions are thereby certainly better now. Expect more "progress" like this in pacifying Baghdad – at least more reports of progress with this surge.

Meanwhile the real build up of additional forces is taking place at sea and on air bases. Retired Air Force General Sam Gardiner suspects: The Pieces Are Being Put in Place – not for an escalation in Iraq that is – that surge is a fake – but for a move against Iran. He recommends to look for further signs of escalation:

Watch for the outrage stuff. The Patriot missiles going to the GCC states are only part of the missile defense assets. I would expect to see the deployment of some of the European-based missile defense assets to Israel, just as they were before Gulf II.
…
As one of the last steps before a strike, we’ll see USAF tankers moved to unusual places, like Bulgaria. These will be used to refuel the US-based B-2 bombers on their strike missions into Iran. When that happens, we’ll only be days away from a strike.

But maybe that is not going to happen. The fake in the fake surge in Iraq may not have been the intention of the White House, i.e. Cheney’s shadow government, but a collaborative project of the new Sec. Def. Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to prevent a real one.

The neocons initially demanded some 50,000 additional troops in Baghdad. In reality some 5,000 may happen.

If that is indeed so, and some signs are pointing there, Iran may be saved. If the military and Gates can outwit the White House on the surge they even may have ways to prevent an escalation with Iran.

But then, that hope is certainly based on speculation.

Posted by b on January 19, 2007 at 20:41 UTC | Permalink

Comments

thanks b

Posted by: annie | Jan 19 2007 20:58 utc | 1

thanks for the Arkin link, b – read the whole thing, which I had missed.
I’ve been wondering why there hasn’t been more discussion, at least on international CNN, BBC, etc. & other print sources about actual troop movements and numbers of the escalation, and the fact that it all will be in slow motion.
Your idea of a fake surge is an interesting one – would it lead us to the conclusion that the dems in congress are in on it or what? Even though their resolutions are non-binding, opposing a surge is the right thing – but opposing a fake surge …?

Posted by: Hamburger | Jan 19 2007 22:49 utc | 2

b, I hear you.
there are’t enuf smokes & mirrors to make-believe whats about — distractions.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jan 20 2007 2:47 utc | 3

I don’t believe a word this Administration says, and that includes ‘hello’.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 20 2007 2:48 utc | 4

It Won’t Be Surgical . . .
Reuters → A Real War

Posted by: Antifa | Jan 20 2007 5:44 utc | 5

Leading Senator Assails President Over Iran Stance

The new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Friday sharply criticized the Bush administration’s increasingly combative stance toward Iran, saying that White House efforts to portray it as a growing threat are uncomfortably reminiscent of rhetoric about Iraq before the American invasion of 2003.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who took control of the committee this month, said that the administration was building a case against Tehran even as American intelligence agencies still know little about either Iran’s internal dynamics or its intentions in the Middle East.
“To be quite honest, I’m a little concerned that it’s Iraq again,” Senator Rockefeller said during an interview in his office. “This whole concept of moving against Iran is bizarre.”
…
Mr. Rockefeller said he believed President Bush was getting poor advice from advisers who argue that an uncompromising stance toward the government in Tehran will serve American interests.
“I don’t think that policy makers in this administration particularly understand Iran,” he said.

Posted by: b | Jan 20 2007 8:18 utc | 6

Good roundup b,
This whole “surge” BS is suspicious from the get go. Why telegraph all the details before hand? Why present it in slow motion, with such low expectations? Doubly counterintuitive, why has Condi’s recent trip produced the anti-Iranian consensus it apparently has, givin that the U.S. is largely responsible and continues to facilitate Iran’s rise to power? And what about al-Sadr’s decision to play along or at least dissolve in face of the U.S. Sadr City incursion (and stand silent on the university bombing)? All this before there has even been any evidence of a “surge” by the U.S. military. Something has spooked the situation, and of course to me, it can only make sense by some decree that puts the Maliki government under serious pressure to capitulate NOW, or else. And its the else, that rice has been telling the client states is bound to happen with promises that the Shiite governance in Iraq will be a thing of the past, with the rollback going all the way to Tehran’s doorstep.

Posted by: anna missed | Jan 20 2007 9:32 utc | 7

Kurdish Iraqi soldiers are deserting to avoid the conflict in Baghdad

As the Iraqi government attempts to secure a capital city ravaged by conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslim Arabs, its decision to bring a third party into the mix may cause more problems than peace.
Kurdish soldiers from northern Iraq, who are mostly Sunnis but not Arabs, are deserting the army to avoid the civil war in Baghdad, a conflict they consider someone else’s problem.
…
Much as Shiite militias have infiltrated the Iraqi security forces across Arab Iraq, the peshmerga fill the ranks of the Iraqi army in the Kurdish region in the north, poised to secure a semi-independent Kurdistan and seize oil-rich Kirkuk and parts of Mosul if Iraq falls apart. One thing they didn’t bank on, they said, was being sent into the “fire” of Baghdad.
“The soldiers don’t know the Arabic language, the Arab tradition, and they don’t have any experience fighting terror,” said Anwar Dolani, a former peshmerga commander who leads the brigade that’s being transferred to Baghdad from the Kurdish city of Sulaimaniyah.
Dolani called the desertions a “phenomenon” but refused to say how many soldiers have left the army.
“I can’t deny that a number of soldiers have deserted the army, and it might increase due to the ferocious military operations in Baghdad,” he said.

Posted by: b | Jan 20 2007 10:53 utc | 8

A diarist at DKos agrees: Reading TASS News: On al-Sadr

This is a public relations script written by a White House lackey. Bush orders al-Maliki to get with the program. Al-Maliki rails against Rice and the U.S. in public, but takes immediate action, rounding up 400 bad guys (of the tens of thousands of armed militia men in Sadr City, along with selected leaders. Al-Sadr makes a public statement declaring a holy month off to flee for his life, and consider what action to take.
In reality, this is a planned vacation for a few hundred Sadrists. Perhaps the selected fall of a less than favored Sadr loyalist. It plays well in the press, but does little or nothing to impact the military power of al-Sadr. He takes it easy for a month, until the pressure of the surge dies down. And then it is back to the business at hand. Purging as many Sunnis as he freaking-well can.

Posted by: b | Jan 20 2007 11:18 utc | 9

B: The neocons initially demanded some 50,000 additional troops in Baghdad. In reality some 5,000 may happen.
If that is indeed so, and some signs are pointing there, Iran may be saved. If the military and Gates can outwit the White House on the surge they even may have ways to prevent an escalation with Iran.
But then, that hope is certainly based on speculation.
I’m doubtful with such a speculation regarding the fake out, but appreciate such optimism. Who exactly is faking whom? Using just one example, it sure appears that CIA/Special Forces are trying to provoke Iran as to the recent Iran embassy searches. No doubt any halfway verifiable military response by Iran will be dealt with severely and it seems Bush is just itching for such a situation. If Gates and the military establishment are faking the “decider” or plan to do so in the future, they are doing too good a job in fooling him. Who in the U.S. and the Congress would be involved in such a total fake out? Remember, the “old man” (Cheney) is still alive and kicking and he is not one to be easily faked out. And Hadley on “Meet the Press” last Sunday did a bang up job holding down the fort. Hadley didn’t look that easily fooled unless you are talking about an actual hidden revolt/mutiny by Gates and the military leaders yet to come. Michael Leeden’s recent article “The Little Bit Pregnant Policy” sure makes a continued battle cry of ‘IRAN – IRAN – IRAN’. Of course there is Israel, the seemingly invisible elephant found in every planning room, a factor that is rarely mentioned with the Iranian escalation.
There is a fake out regarding the surge, but it is not a fake out upon the “decider” and the old man, but on the U.S. public (as is usually the case). Iranian attacks continue being planned, and have already been partly implemented, as noted by your sources. Gates certainly had little moral qualms about military uses in Central America. These guys, including Condi and Gates, don’t point their guns unless they’re itching to pull the trigger. When I say “their guns” I am placing blame where it belongs. Regardless of further war with Iran or not, the Bush regime does not now represent, nor has it ever represented, the interests of the American people. Moreover it appears, they no longer represent the majority opinion of the military personnel serving in the Middle East. Perhaps a fake out will not be needed to prevent war with Iran; to be sure, an open refusal would be preferable.

Posted by: Rick | Jan 20 2007 13:30 utc | 10

for what it’s worth..
al hayat interview w/hakim

Al-Hayat: You disagreed with the US president on his assessment of the Syrian and Iranian roles in Iraq. Will you try to change the US perception in this regard?
Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim: We disagree with the Americans on the way they assess that role and not on the actions taken. We have different perceptions of the Syrian and Iranian roles in Iraq. During our meeting with President George Bush, we pondered on this point in particular. At the end, Bush said: “As Iraqis, you have the right to act the way you believe.” We also heed our beliefs. Therefore, respecting the will of the Iraqi people is of paramount importance. We still believe that Iran and Syria along with all the neighboring countries can play important roles. Such countries need to support Iraq’s security and political process.
Al-Hayat: Do you expect these two countries to ratchet up the security situation in Iraq if their relations with the US remain tense?
Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim: The assessment will certainly change if we can prove with facts the positive roles both countries play.
Al-Hayat: Are you undertaking any attempts in this direction?
Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim: The Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is now in Syria, while other officials have headed for the neighboring countries. We always champion a regional military and economic partnership.

there is also this part that i find intriguing

Al-Hayat: Are there talks about any US-Iraqi project to solve the problem of militias and devise a training program to rehabilitate and reintegrate the militia members in the state institutions?
Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim: Militias are of four kinds: First, we have the forces that kept on fighting Saddam until it eventually overthrew him. They are respected by the Iraqi people and have had positive and valuable roles. They were later disbanded by Law 91 – with the “Peshmerga” members joining the armed forces, let alone 9 other militias belonging to well-known political trends, like Badr, Daawa, National Conference, Islamic Party, Hezbollah, and others. Second, we have the so-called post-occupation militias that wanted to safeguard the Iraqi facilities. With some 140 thousand members or more, they are divided into 33 groups funded and armed by the State that even provides them with cars and identity cards, though it does not command them, which is so dangerous.
Al-Hayat: Do you mean they are licensed?
Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim: Yes they are. They are even supported and funded by the State though they operate independently from it. They were previously due to be to integrated in the Ministries of Interior and Defense, whereby one of them will control these militias grouping former soldiers, some of whom were illegally promoted to officers. But only the good ones need to be kept. The third type of militias has been in charge of self-defense in the Sunni and Shiite regions where confrontations and clashes took place. Such groups will certainly vanish with the emergence of a strong state capable of maintaining security and order. Finally, there are the enemy militias, like extremists and Saddamists who must be fought by all.

i recommend the entire interview. he aliegns himself w/the US positions (naturally) for the most part , also in trumpeting the samarra mosque meme.
In our opinion, the battle pits the Iraqi people against the Baathists and extremists, who are struggling to ignite a confessional strife in the aftermath of Samarra bombings.
here’s his assessment of the baghdad security plan..

Al-Hayat: Some believe that the US strategy falls short of the ambitions of the Iraqi government, mainly with respect to restoring security and regaining control over military sectors. They also claim that the powers you referred to only concern implementing Baghdad security plan.
Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim: We will need to delve into details. In our view, all Iraqis want the government to take control of the security conditions, as took place in Najaf for instance – with the security responsibility in other provinces to be handed in to the Iraqis by October. Therefore, Baghdad security plan is the most important security and military plan and challenge the government will have to counter.

i consider hakim the defacto extremist strong arm in iraq, instead of maliki.
my question about the surge, fake or not, is how baghdad is going to be segmented into these 9 regions without mass bloodshed.

Posted by: annie | Jan 20 2007 16:25 utc | 11

Once again, we get the Friedman unit:
Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq, said today that the additional troops being sent to Iraq could begin to be withdrawn by late summer if security conditions improve in Baghdad.
One Friedman Unit equals six months.[1]
The term is a neologism coined by blogger Atrios[2] (Duncan Black) in reference to the discovery by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting of journalist Thomas Friedman’s repeated use[3] of “the next six months” as the time period in which, according to Friedman, “we’re going to find out…whether a decent outcome is possible” in the Iraq War.
FAIR cited his use of the phrase as early as 2003. More broadly, any date-specific statement by a public figure regarding the future of Iraq or the Iraq War may be measured in Friedman Units. Examples may involve troop withdrawals, the formation of government in parliament, the pacification of Baghdad, or merely an upcoming “critical time” in Iraq.

Posted by: doug r | Jan 20 2007 16:43 utc | 12

annie
the short answer to your pertinant question – is that it will be impossible – impossible without bloodshed
i’ve not been especially well this last fortnigh so i am especially thankful of the real work being done here – especiually the linking & resourcing – without it i would be more lost than i already am
i’m still in two minds about whether this criminal administration would really attempt to fight another illegal war against iran
i mean, i know, they have been unfailingly stupid – but i don’ think there would be a military strategist of sane mind anywhere on this planet that could vision this in any other way than in terms of an apocalypse – i think we are there in part already but any move against iran will seal the deal with a militant islam that will generalise the war
(ot – but i was watching an interview on aljazeera with bhargouti of the palestinian authority, robert fisk & some hack from the state dept – who claimed to one & all that the palestinians did not oppose the settlements but the u s did – i thought fisk would have a cardiac arrest – bhargouti very good on the way that ipaic works to tell a narrative that has nothing, nothing at all to do with the truth but even aljazeera does not want to hear this & cut bhargouti before he sd more)

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 20 2007 16:46 utc | 13

Repubblica interview with al-Sadr: “A secret army is against us but the Sci’ites will know how to resist” – Moqtada al Sadr speaks: “Allawi is the US’s man, not Maliki”

Caprile: The fact remains that your people are about to be struck with an iron fist.
Al Sadr: “The operation has already started. Last night they already arrested over four hundred of my men. It is not us they want to destroy, but Islam – we are only an obstacle. For the time being, we shall not put up any resistance against them.”
Caprile: Do you mean that you will hand in your weapons?
Al Sadr: “During muharram (the holy month commemorating the martyrdom of Hussein over six hundred years ago, ed.) the Quran forbids us to kill. So let them kill us if they want to, for a true believer there is no better time to die: Paradise is assured. But God is generous, not all of us shall die. After muharram the tide will turn.”
Caprile: Some say that the army and police are heavily infiltrated by your men and that the marines would never be able to disarm you on their own.
Al Sadr: “The truth is exactly the opposite: it’s our militia that’s swarming with spies. And in any case, it’s not a hard task to infiltrate a people’s army. And these are the very same people who have been committing unworthy deeds to discredit the Mahdi Army. There are at least four armies ready to strike us. One is a “shadow force” which no-one ever talks about, trained under the most secret conditions in the Jordanian desert by the Americans. And then there’s the private army of Allawi himself, that infidel who will soon take Maliki’s place, which is readying itself for the fray in the former military airport of Muthanna. Then there are the Kurdish peshmergas, and lastly there are the American regular troops.”
…
Caprile: Even if you weren’t there, can you deny that the execution room was full of your men?
Al Sadr: “No, those were not my men. They were people paid to discredit me. To make it seem I was the person really responsible for that hanging. The proof lies in the fact – just listen to the audio – that when they recited my prayer they left out some essential parts. A mistake that not even a single child in Sadr City would ever have made. The aim was to make it seem Moqtada was the real enemy of the Sunnis. And they succeeded.
…

Posted by: b | Jan 20 2007 17:23 utc | 14

Muharram

Posted by: beq | Jan 20 2007 18:07 utc | 15

doug r, the metric friedman unit more reflects caseys views, no? 🙂
On November 29, 2006, Friedman unveiled a new time metric, that some refer to as a “New Friedman Unit” or “Metric Friedman Unit.” This measure of time is “10 months or 10 years”[5] and refers to the argument Friedman now makes that the United States must either re-commit itself to fully stabilizing Iraq (10 years) or complete a phased withdrawal (10 months). This new dual unit of time is equivalent to either 1.66 or 20 Friedman Units.
or maybe just a partial MFU since the phased withdrawl he’s referring to is only for the additionsl troops (which aren’t really additional, just reshuffled and maybe what this means is the reshuffling will end w/in the MFU timeframe)
some hack from the state dept – who claimed to one & all that the palestinians did not oppose the settlements but the u s did – i thought fisk would have a cardiac arrest
reminds me how neocons believe democracy, however flawed, was best defended by an ignorant public.
Saudi paper prints speculation on Allawi as head of a military government in Iraq
perhaps allawi is part of the US/SA plan.

Posted by: annie | Jan 20 2007 18:13 utc | 16

U.S. copter down in Iraq; 13 aboard dead

A U.S. military helicopter crashed Saturday northeast of Baghdad, killing all 13 people on board, a new blow to American efforts in
Iraq as U.S. and Iraqi forces prepare for a major security operation to pacify the capital and surrounding areas.
The military said the crash was under investigation. The brief U.S. statement lacked the customary comment that the aircraft was not shot down, indicating it may have come under fire by insurgents.
…
…
The U.S. military, in a statement that did not name al-Darraji, said special Iraqi army forces operating with U.S. advisers had “captured a high-level, illegal armed group leader” in Baghdad’s Baladiyat neighborhood, which is adjacent to Sadr City, the stronghold of al-Sadr’s militia, the Mahdi Army. It said two other suspects were also detained.
Nassar al-Rubaie, the head of al-Sadr’s bloc in parliament, accused U.S. forces of trying to provoke the Sadrists into violence ahead of the security operation.
He said al-Darraji “is a peaceful man and what was mentioned in the American release is lies and justification for the aggression against al-Sadr’s movement.”

Posted by: b | Jan 20 2007 18:27 utc | 17

One is a “shadow force” which no-one ever talks about, trained under the most secret conditions in the Jordanian desert by the Americans.
wouldn’t be the first time
8/02 More US Troops in Jordan for Iraq Offensive

Notwithstanding official denials, the 4,000 US troops who began landing in Aqaba Monday, August 12, will be transferred to the northeast Jordanian desert region bordering on Iraq. Officially, they have come for a three-week joint exercise with the Jordanian army. But DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the American increment supplements the US force already stationed in Jordan, raising the total to close to 8,000 US troops.

Posted by: annie | Jan 20 2007 18:40 utc | 18

annie,
Allawi was also mentioned by Sadr (in his interview) as “waiting at the airport” for his call to come in, as Iraq’s new leader. Today, Sadr’s people have returned to their governmental posts after their self imposed absencce.
What ever is going on, it seems significant that so much “cooperation” is being had for so little effort. If Allawi was actually “waiting at the airport” to replace Maliki, that would surely motivate the Sadrists, who would do anything to avoid a return to the Najaf, anti-Sadr regieme of Allawi.

Posted by: anna missed | Jan 20 2007 18:45 utc | 19

The full Muqtada al-Sadr interview is avaliable at Helena Cobban’s blog.

Posted by: anna missed | Jan 20 2007 18:50 utc | 20

i admit anna missed, things seem to be moving under the table very fast
Today, Sadr’s people have returned to their governmental posts after their self imposed absencce.
just read this morning (egyptian press) 750 or so baathists had just been re instated back in their government jobs via chabali who just msntioned the other day he was under ‘no pressure’. wonder how chabali and allawi get along. you know?
thanks, i placed helena’s blog on my toolbar yesterday, essential reading.

Posted by: annie | Jan 20 2007 18:59 utc | 21

Looking at La Repubblica (post 14)
Translating the home page it looks like an American Helicopter went down in Iraq this afternoon killing all 14.
Amazing so little news about this so far in U.S. media- I have had msnbc cable tv on this afternoon and little/to none about this in the last hour on this. (After looking, I notice now it is in the small moving banner at the bottom of the TV screen but haven’t hear this announced by the live hostess.) Browsing the web to http://www.cnn.com, it is a small headline, but there is a big picture of Hillary on the page!

Posted by: Rick | Jan 20 2007 19:02 utc | 22

Regarding #22 – oops – 13 killed I guess, not 14. News on the hour said military being very quiet about releasing info.

Posted by: Rick | Jan 20 2007 19:07 utc | 23

wonder how chabali and allawi get along. you know?
If Chalabi is re-Baathifying without pressure, he can do anything and work with anyone, for a price.
Chalabi and Allawi are cousins.

Posted by: anna missed | Jan 20 2007 19:28 utc | 24

A relative complete round-up of current known events: War with Iran: No More Denial. It’s In Motion

Posted by: b | Jan 20 2007 19:49 utc | 25

A new take from Sam Gardiner on Left Coaster: The Other Surge: An Update on Iran

…
I expect we will get even more indication of the direction the White House is taking on Iran from the State of the Union Message on Tuesday.
After seeing all of this unfold, there is an obvious question. What’s the U.S. strategy for Iran? Does all of it mean an attack is close. My sense at this point is an attack is not imminent.
I think we are seeing an unfolding of a broad strategy to put pressure on the Iranians. We have seen diplomatic pressure. We have seen economic pressure with the sanctions. We are now seeing military pressure. It’s not just about the Iranian nuclear program. It goes beyond that. I think the White House is concerned about the growing influence of Iran in the Middle East.
It’s about pressure now. At some point it could be about a strike.

Posted by: b | Jan 20 2007 19:52 utc | 26

Iran masses troops along borders with Iraq
An Iraqi Kurdish source said Friday that Iran is massing troops along its borders with north Iraq.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 21 2007 0:09 utc | 27

big weekend for interviews ……allawi

Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 21 2007 0:09 utc | 28

The only time they tell us the truth is when the truth just happens to coincide with their agenda.
When the national, nay, world proclaimed news is: “There will be a surge…” then the one thing one can say for sure is that is not their intention and is a cover up for their more covert moves. What military commander would shout to the enemy “we’re coming in en-mass so get ready.” What a laugh. No, it’s just too pathetically puerile to find any humor. And the fact that such a large percentage of we Americans believe their tripe wipes any smirk off my face.
Iran? There is just too much press about Iran to convince me that that too is not a cover. Ah, smoke and mirrors as jony_b_c points out. But that’s the game they play and move us about as their pawns.
Nice to see you back Uncle. I second your recommendation of David Korten’s book, “The Great Turning, from Empire to Earth Community”.

Posted by: Juannie | Jan 21 2007 2:13 utc | 29

This report from ‘Bagdad Bob’ claims there were 15 on board the U.S. helicopter that was shot down today, and one of them was a “high ranking American officer”. I wouldn’t doubt that things may be worse than is being originally reported, especially considering that at least 21 GI deaths have been reported today already in Iraq.
Diyala Province.
Buhriz.
Resistance shoots down US helicopter near Buhriz; US admits 13 troops dead.
In a dispatch posted at 7:55pm Makkah time Saturday night, Mafkarat al-Islam reported that the Iraqi Resistance organization the Jaysh al-Mujahideen [“Army of the Holy Warriors”] had announced that it had shot down a US helicopter near the city of Buhriz, about 60km northeast of Baghdad.
The Buhriz correspondent for Mafkarat al-Islam reported that the helicopter was carrying more than 15 US Marines. In an exclusive statement to Mafkarat al-Islam, a commander in the Jaysh al-Mujahideen said that the Resistance group in Buhriz had shot down the American helicopter with ground-based anti-aircraft fire.
Quds Press, in a dispatch posted Saturday evening, reported that Jaysh al-Mujahideen fighters opened fire with machine guns in the at-Tamayimah gardens area of Buhriz, scoring direct hits and bringing down the American helicopter. A Jaysh al-Mujahideen source told Quds Press that 15 Americans were aboard the helicopter, not 13 as the US admitted, and that one of those was a high-ranking American officer.
In a dispatch posted at 7:47pm Makkah time Saturday night, Mafkarat al-Islam reported that the US military had admitted Saturday evening that an American military helicopter had crashed northeast of Baghdad.
Mafkarat al-Islam reported a news bulletin broadcast by al-Jazeera satellite TV as saying that the 13 military passengers and crew aboard the helicopter had all been killed. Al-Jazeera offered no further details on the crash.
Quds Press reported that large numbers of US troops had surrounded the area where the helicopter crashed. American helicopters fired bright flares that “turned the Buhriz night into day” Quds Press reported, as they hunted for the remains of the soldiers killed in the crash.
The Americans locked down the entire city of Buhriz, sealing it off from the outside world and imposing a curfew there. Large numbers of US troops were being brought into the farm fields and gardens that extend around the area where the helicopter went down, Quds Press reported. Local residents said that the Americans were searching the fields and farms and also the river that runs through the town, as it was expected that a number of the Americans could have fallen into its waters.

Posted by: Rick | Jan 21 2007 4:56 utc | 30

Spying in Baghdad: The CIA’s Real Mission Impossible

In 2004 the station began swelling to its current staffing of about 500 operatives, technicians and other support personnel.
Scores of case officers were borrowed from Washington or elsewhere, particularly Europe and Africa, for short stints in Iraq, CIA sources said.
Many were out of shape and lacked basic military skills, said a source with first-hand knowledge of the situation.
They got two weeks’ combat orientation.
“They were overweight case officers from Geneva who we gave bandoleers and shotguns and then send them to Baghdad,” the source said.
…
The situation isn’t entirely bleak.
Many of the CIA’s young post-9/11 recruits are smart and tough and eager to get into the war, said a senior CIA veteran of Afghanistan.
“They’re good, real good,” he said.
But most of them, especially former Special Forces and Delta Force commandos, are employed in the CIA’s paramilitary branch and pretty much doing what they were doing before in Iraq: Conducting raids to disrupt terrorist attacks and snatch “high value targets,” from insurgent leaders to Iranian operatives.
Military spy services have tried to fill the intelligence vacuum, informed sources said, but they face the same dangerous streets and language deficits as the CIA.
“I heard about one personal meeting a case officer had with an agent,” said an amazed former CIA operator. “They rendezvoused in armored Humvees on a neighborhood street. That’s ridiculous.”

Posted by: b | Jan 21 2007 8:09 utc | 31

As noted above in a comment, yesterday 20 U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq in 1 day.
And buried down in this link is this info:

Al-Sadr’s followers voiced increasing anger over Friday’s capture of a senior aide to the radical cleric in a raid in eastern Baghdad.
Nassar al-Rubaie, the head of al-Sadr’s bloc in parliament, accused U.S. forces of trying to provoke the Sadrists into violence during the expanding campaign to quell Iraq’s fighting.
“We condemn strongly the arrest of Sheik Abdul-Hadi al-Darraji. He is moderate and well-known as a media personality and always available in negotiations,” al-Rubaie said. “He is a peaceful man and what was mentioned in the American release is lies and justification for the aggression against al-Sadr’s movement.”
U.S. and Iraqi forces reportedly detained al-Darraji during a raid on a mosque complex before dawn Friday.
The U.S. military, in a statement that did not name al-Darraji, said special Iraqi army forces operating with U.S. advisers had “captured a high-level, illegal armed group leader” in Baghdad’s Baladiyat neighborhood, next to the Mahdi Army stronghold of Sadr City. It said two other suspects were detained for further questioning.
Sadiq al-Rikabi, an al-Maliki adviser, told Al-Arabiya television the operation was not coordinated with Iraq’s political leaders and was not part of the new security campaign.

It seemed worth putting up here as one additional piece in whatever is afoot… I don’t know anything about this guy. Does anyone else?

Posted by: Bea | Jan 21 2007 15:53 utc | 32

The number of troops in Iraq has stayed pretty stable since 2003 (afaik, and 10 or 20 thou makes no never mind, many of these people are travelling or sit in barracks and etc.) However, the discussion of less and more troops, of withdrawing some, or so many, or sending more, or calling up these, or not, etc. etc. has been practically published each day since 2004….Antiwar com usually has these at the top. Three or four times a week, at least. More, less, a bit more, a lot less…It reminds me of tables in a cantina where I worked – more is good for obvious reasons; but carries disadvantages and difficulties as well; what exactly the best number is was discussed endlessly by the staff, creatively so. Many of the discussants had personal stakes, the boss was hesitant, etc.
Nothing much ever changed, as the parameters and thresholds were quite rigid.
So why are there so many troops in Iraq? What are they actually doing? What would happen if the number was reduced by half? What are the important factors here, bodies on the ground, money, corruption, a show of splendid strength, the need to keep Americans on their toes and suffering with a back-door draft, building those bases, selling military matériel (or rather giving them to militias care of the US taxpayer) — what?
I’m guessing it is, in its end result, much like my cantina.
But all the factors are hidden.

Posted by: Noirette | Jan 21 2007 18:48 utc | 33

Three analytical pieces about the real meaning behind the surge and what lies ahead:
The Real Meaning Behind the Surge

Bush and Cheney have no intention of improving security; we know that. The surge is a cover for the impending crackdown on the Sunni neighborhoods which are the main strongholds of the Iraqi resistance. Bush is planning to “drain the sea in which they swim” as Mao noted. In a matter of weeks, tens of thousands of Sunnis will be forced to flee Baghdad to nearby Syria and Jordan . This is clear from recent military operations in the Haifa Street district near the Green Zone.

Washington’s Political Cleansing

Bush’s surge, is a military plan that cannot produce its stated political outcome and will instead further unleash the forces he claims will be controlled. His offensive to subdue the Sunni insurgents is already accelerating the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad by the Shia militias, which, rather than being contained, are further empowered.

Southern Iraqi Tribes Joining Armed Resistance

BAGHDAD – Violence is spreading further across Iraq, as Shi’ite Arab tribes in the south begin to engage occupation forces in new armed resistance.
Resistance in the southern parts of Iraq has been escalating over the last three months, leading to increased casualties among British and other occupation forces.

And the conclusion?

There’s no way to undo the damage we have done. A nation is not like a coffee cup, where you break the handle and glue it back together again. Iraqi society has been decimated; it cannot be fixed. Nir Rosen said it best:
“There is no solution. We’ve destroyed Iraq and we’ve destroyed the region, and Americans need to know this. This isn’t Rwanda where we can just sit back and watch the Hutus and Tutsies kill each other, and be ‘like wow, this is terrible should we do something?’ We destroyed Iraq . There was no civil war in Iraq until we got there. And there was no civil war until we took certain steps to pit Sunnis against Shias. And now, it is just too late. But, we need to know that we are responsible for what is happening in Iraq today. I don’t think Americans are aware of this. We’ve managed to make Saddam Hussein look good even to Shias at this point. And what we’ve managed to do is not only destabilize Iraq , but Jordan , Saudi Arabia , Iran . This is going to spread for decades, the region won’t recover from this, I think, for decades. And Americans are responsible.”

Posted by: Bea | Jan 22 2007 23:22 utc | 34

This isn’t Rwanda where we can just sit back and watch the Hutus and Tutsies kill each other, and be ‘like wow, this is terrible should we do something?’
actually, it’s very much like what went down in rwanda, only we — meaning the united states — weren’t just sitting around back then either. we got our little regime change in that sitch too, placing u.s. trained kagame in control of the country to represent us-uk interests, usurping long-standing french influence in the great lakes region, by instigating what was played out as a civil war that cost several hundred thousand dark-skinned people their lives. divide & rule 101.

Posted by: b real | Jan 22 2007 23:39 utc | 35

I agree (post)colonial occupation exacerbates ethnic tensions, if for no other reason than an interval of political uncertainty often impels subjagated populations to sieze the moment to redress old injuries. In the case of hutu/tutsie conflict, it is not true sectarianism was created out of nothing by european colonialism. as I understand the history, hutu/tutsie distinction was a culturally arbitrary expression of class conflict, deepened by german and belgian political manipulation.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 23 2007 1:34 utc | 36

Back to Main