Meanwhile: 9 American soldiers killed in Iraq

The deadliest of the vehicle accidents, in western Baghdad, killed seven Multi-National Division — Baghdad soldiers and wounded 11, and left two detainees dead and a third injured. The cause of the accident was under investigation, the military said.

21 in one accident???!

Posted by: b | Sep 10 2007 18:53 utc | 4

Report: U.S. plans base near Iraq-Iran border

Quoting Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the commander of the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, the Journal said the Pentagon also plans to build fortified checkpoints on major highways leading from the Iranian border to Baghdad, and install X-ray machines and explosives-detecting sensors at the only formal border crossing between the two countries.
The base will be located about four miles from the Iranian border and will be used for at least two years, according to the report. U.S. officials told the paper it is unclear whether it will be among the small number of facilities that would remain in Iraq after any future large-scale U.S. withdrawal.

Posted by: b | Sep 10 2007 19:00 utc | 6

Patrick Cockburn says it all about Petraeus:

It is a measure of Petraeus’s political skills that he was promoted to his present position despite being responsible in part for two of the greatest debacles of the Iraq war. In 2003/4 it was Petraeus who was in charge of securing Mosul, the third largest Iraqi city, from the insurgents, and his strategy of conciliating the Sunni and former Baath party members was lauded by the US media. But nine months after he left, the insurgents captured Mosul; the police appointed by Petraeus fled or changed sides, and $41m worth of weapons were lost.
In the same year Petraeus was given the crucial job of overseeing the training and expansion of Iraq’s new army, and again he produced glowing reports of progress. But three years later the army he was charged with turning into an effective fighting force is notoriously incapable and corrupt. In addition, Petraeus failed to observe that almost the entire Iraqi procurement budget of $1.2bn was being embezzled, and Iraqi soldiers were forced to rely on obsolete and inadequate weaponry.

Going on the Mosul stuff with a bit more lead in from lessons he’s learned, the whole surge bullshit will be exposed for the crock it is about the second quarter of 08. That’s right when the dem and rethug windbags who supported this transparent skulduggery will be about to tip the business as usual buckets of rancid lies onto the amerikan population. Hmm could be interesting.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 10 2007 19:50 utc | 8

i wish billmon would grace us w/some snark
Has anyone heard from him lately? In the recent past he would leave comments at various places, including here. It’s been a while though and nothing.
I was turning over the ideal of trying to reach him and asking him for an broad topic interview, perhaps to get him in the mood to write again. One that covers most of what we would like him to speculate on. Perhaps also, we could turn it into a group project and each MOA ask a specific question they would like billmon to talk about. I miss his wit and acerbic chastisement of the ptb. We all know he has deep understanding of the way things are and the way things play out. Which he is a master at explaining and synthesizing for us thick ones…lol
Be damn nice to hear from him.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 10 2007 22:06 utc | 10

May sound trite but, patience.
I can’t believe he’s out of play. Just quarter backing and waiting for the right time to make his pass.
I hope. :-/

Posted by: Juannie | Sep 10 2007 22:12 utc | 12

HOW did we ever fight wars or do anything without Powerpoint?

Posted by: R.L. | Sep 10 2007 23:45 utc | 14

these nancy boy nietzscheans like petraeus will live out their sordid lives in a form of infamy uncommon even for the cretins he serves as nothing much more than an errand boy
when the awful john milius wrote that for apocalypse now he was imagining another epoch – when conradian contexts were availabe for the lives of men – but in this epoch does not exist, it does not exist at all
these so called soldiers are facing a kind of warrior they have not met before & they will be meeting them with more force in the coming months – that much is clear – the u s being so arrogant, so self concerned – it evidently has not witnessed the real movement of forces in iraq – which is completely outside their control – no matter how many sacks of dollar bill or promises of power they give out. this movement of forces will act with an even more terrible ferocity than it has at present
for all the slanderous words that have been spoken of the people of iraq – it is the people of iraq who are waging this war – as iraquis – not as a member of this or that formation, this or that sect & the lie the us spreads will come back to devour it
the politics of those courageous men & women facing u s power can be questioned – but their basic right to oppose occupation by any means necessary, cannot & their ultimate victory cannot be questioned
what petraeus has made clear is that the slaughterhouse of the imperium will continue

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 11 2007 0:14 utc | 16

Marc Lynch has just posted the results of a BBC/ABC/NHK poll of Iraqi citizens concerning the current Petreaus surge. I’m posting his whole post on the subject:
What Iraqis Think, Again
What do Iraqis think about the surge? The first nationwide opinion survey since February has just been released, and it provides absolutely essential context for this week’s debate over Iraq. The survey should help Americans cut through the spin and get a better view of what Iraqis really think. The BBC/ABC/NHK survey, conducted in all 19 provinces during August, finds that 70% of Iraqis believe that security has deteriorated in the areas covered by the US “surge”, and 11% say it has had no effect. Only 11% say that security in the country as a whole has improved in the last six months. And 70% say that the conditions for political dialogue have gotten worse in the last six months. Bottom line: Iraqis overall, and especially Sunnis, are more opposed to the American presence than ever, do not think the surge has accomplished either its military or its political goals, and have dwindling confidence in the US forces.
Has Petraeus’s counter-insurgency strategy and the surge won respect for the American presence? No. Only 15% express confidence in US/UK occupation forces, down from 18% in February, with 58% expressing “no confidence at all” – the highest in any of these surveys dating back to 2003. 80% say that the US has done a bad job in Iraq. 79% oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq. 72% say that the presence of US forces is making security worse.
When should US forces leave? 47% say “leave immediately” – by far the highest support for immediate departure on record (it was 35% in February). 34% say stay until security is restored, 10% say stay until the Iraqi government is stronger. Only 2% say “remain longer but leave eventually”.
What about the Sunnis, whose Great Awakenings and embrace of the United States has become the centerpiece of the Petraeus strategy and the great hope of KaganWorld? Only 1% of Sunnis say they have confidence in American forces. Only 1% of Sunnis support the American presence in Iraq. Only 1% of Sunnis say that security has improved in Iraq as a whole in the last 6 months. 72% of Sunnis say that the US forces should leave immediately. 95% of Sunnis say that the presence of US troops makes security worse. 93% still see attacks on coalition forces as acceptable.
Other interesting findings:
* You’ll recall that the explicit purpose of the surge was to create the conditions for political dialogue. 70% see “conditions for political dialogue” as having gotten worse in the last six months.
* When asked about how things are going in Iraq, 78% say “quite bad”or “very bad”, up from 66% in February. Only 22% say “quite good” or “very good”. Among Sunnis, home of the great Awakenings, only 2% say that the situation is good, and none say “very good.”
* 56% described the “security situation” in the neighborhood in which they live as bad, up slightly from 53% in February, while only 24% say that the security situation in this neighborhood has improved in the past six months. 79% of Sunnis say that security in their neighborhood is bad – despite all those American walking tours of happy, safe markets. Only 7% of Sunnis say that security in their neighborhood has improved in the last 6 months, and only 6% feel safe in their neighborhood.
* Don’t get too excited that 43% say that the neighborhood in which they currently live is relatively safe, because it’s probably because this is where they fled to escape from ethnic cleansing: 74% describe their “freedom of movement – the ability to go where you wish safely” as bad, and 77% say that “freedom to live where you wish without persecution” is bad. An astonishing 98% say that the separation of people along sectarian lines is a bad thing.
* Only 35% think that an American withdrawal will make civil war more likely, 46% say less likely.
* About that soft partition boomlet? 62% prefer a unified Iraq, 28% a soft partition, and 9% a full partition.
* 65% say that the current national government is doing a bad job, and 66% disapprove of Maliki personally.
Anyone who cares what Iraqis think about America’s strategy in Iraq should pay very careful attention to this public opinion survey.

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 11 2007 0:31 utc | 18

malooga, yes you have got the skinny. in brief. slaughterhouse sustained
when we witness what is happening on the streets of iraq – these congressional hearings have all the characteristic chill of the genocide being done to a people as was the case at the wannasee conference
they are the same kind of men – men who will do their worst until history catches up with them

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 11 2007 0:45 utc | 20

no, that about wraps it.

Posted by: annie | Sep 11 2007 1:00 utc | 22

Apple => $100M’s in advertising, $10M’s in tooling, $10M’s in vendor x-licensing agreements, $10M in national rollout, for:
$400M in i-sales, and sales curve tanking into deep discount.
Betrayus => $10 powerpoint slide show, $10 lapel mike, for:
$50,000M in 3Q07 DoD/DHS dole, and a sales curve rising >6%.
Hands down, Betrayus has the hottest ponzi on earth going now.
We’re lucky he didn’t walk on stage in a JP Patches costume.
At least we’re not forced to subscribe to AT&T at tax-time.

Posted by: App Ops | Sep 11 2007 4:18 utc | 24

@21
6) Hold the line in Iraq while Washington factions fight internal battles, inside Administration and between Admin, Congress, Dems, Repubs, banks, “allies” about what comes next and who takes credit or gets blamed. Washington’s version of ethnosectarian conflict, with dividing lines as muddled and overlapping as any in Iraq.

Posted by: small coke | Sep 11 2007 4:26 utc | 26

The worst thing of these hearing was to see how the committee members felated Betrayus’ noddle.
“Oh holy man, eternal truthteller, you and your mighty troops …”
Petraeus is self advertising lier and most of the troops are part of totally overated chairbone divisions.
Disgusting …

Posted by: b | Sep 11 2007 11:17 utc | 28

i don’t know why i should seek out punishment in watching these clowns. whole notions of honour truth & sense have dissapeared entirely from the public discourse
to hear them lie over & over again & again – is repulsive. truly repulsive. & they lying is so transparent it is difficult to believe a half intelligent person could not see through it – therefore if the war continues – it does so because the american public have been transformed into good germans
while the murder of the people of iraq is quotidian – this public really do not give a fuck

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 11 2007 16:34 utc | 30

Skoal Uncle!
@ r’giap
Not sure about this public.
Other possibilities. They have given up on leaders. They have given up on press. What is put in the public arena makes no sense, and is mostly confusing. Is there anyone to believe? Most know they want out of this war, and they aren’t listening much otherwise. They don’t like the present situation, and they don’t like most of the solutions either (head in sand). A temptation to look backwards in time and direction with simple nostalgia gives momentum to campaigns that offer simple shibboleths, like those of Reagan or Bush. The war is depressing and nothing seems to stop it, so they change channels – circuses. They are too busy laboring hard to pay the bills that contemporary comforts provide – bread. Lots of variations on inaction, or perceived helplessness.
There is, also, the curious question of what no one seems to learn in school or at home any more. Amazing how many people, when asked, say they had no instruction on US Constitution and underlying priciples of popular government, and very little of actual issues of US revolution framers of government, not to mention more contemporary theories and histories of empire and politics. Madison relied on a people who knew their rights and their responsiblity to guard them, to overthrow governments if necessary.
Various forms of fatalism seem to take hold, when people are unhappy but still mostly adequately fed and housed. Watching others fall through the gaping holes in the rags of a social safety net, makes others wary and cautious and fearful. Then comes the demonstrations that dark strangers mingled among them will kill them if they can. “The public” settles for bread and circuses and xenophobia. Simple calculus: US is bad. Not-US is fatal. Where to turn.
I don’t know. It’s not a simple public, but it is a risk-wary one that knows that it hears many lies.

Posted by: small coke | Sep 11 2007 17:26 utc | 32

“Of course, there has been progress, they [the Americans] are painting murals on the blast walls now.”
Ahmad, a taxi driver from Qadissya in west Baghdad
The quip from the cab driver, a primary source for any visitor to a new environment, answers the question of whether the dems paper thin cover for cowardice, and Bush’s last desperate throw of the dice in Iraq, The Surge (“hey isn’t that a laundry powder?”) has achieved it goals.
It answers that question – no it hasn’t – while it asks a much bigger and more pertinent one.
That is after all this time and all these instances of the media getting caught out for steno-graphing politicians and military bosses lies vacillations and distortions, why is the amerikan media still relying on the tackily staged event that Petreaus presentation to the House was, rather than finding out the truth for itself?
The quotation above came from a Guardian article. The old Grauniad has had difficulty covering the Iraq invasion because this paper which is normally outspoken against western imperialism is also ‘the unofficial’ organ of the english Labour Party and has generally put it’s relationship with centrist power brokers ahead of any scruples about a few hundred thousand unnecessary ‘wog’ deaths.
Despite all that it appears to still have a few tattered journalistic principles so James Cameron Award-winning journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad was asked to hit the streets of Baghdad to try and find out if the surge had much lasting impact.
The article begins with a description of the scene at a major roadblock:

The sun was setting quickly and the policeman shouted, blew his whistle and pointed his gun at a queue of impatient drivers ordering them to stay in line.
Something was happening but none of the drivers of the dozens of cars waiting in the early evening heat knew what it was.
About 30 gunmen milled around the checkpoint. Two young men in Iraqi army uniforms sat on the front of an armored personnel carrier. Three men, wearing blue shirts and dark blue trousers stood next to a green SUV.
A further dozen gunmen wearing camouflage uniforms, red berets and carrying the insignia on their shoulders of the Ministry of Interior commandos stood in the shade of concrete blast walls that make the checkpoints.
The commandos are accused of being nothing but a Shiite death squad, so when one of them, wearing weight-lifting wristbands, passed between cars looking at faces the drivers’ heads sunk into their chests and they looked away.
One driver suggested that others join him in driving on a parallel road that passed through west Baghdad neighborhoods, assuring others that the area had become safe.
“Ami [my uncle] do you want to kill us,” one driver said, raising his two hands. “The roads are filled with fake checkpoints killing people on the haweya [ID card].”
“And what do you know about this checkpoint,” answered the man and nodded towards the gunmen. “Look at them, they are militiamen.”

Pretty much what one would have expected in a war zone where cosmetic efforts have been made to create an air of tranquility. As long as the residents conform to a long list of ‘un-written laws’ the chances are they will be all right if they go out of their ‘safe zones’ ghettos really, for a limited number of times and stick to a simple schedule. Must be great for trying to earn enough to keep food on the table. Anyone who has had responsibility for a number of mouths to feed with no guaranteed income stream would understand the challenges any Baghdadi ‘battler‘ must face. As many urban breadwinners know, hunting and gathering in a city is a task that requires transport, speed, and flexibility – none of which are easy accomplishments in Baghdad pre or post surge. No wonder the mal-nutrition and infant mortality rates are still increasing.
The situation is exactly as many of us have surmised. The population displacement has been huge, most ‘mixed’ areas have become exclusive enclaves. The kidnapping and murders aren’t as frequent but that is no thanks to the surge. Where ‘necessary’ the violence continues.

Another resident, a father-of-three, who lives in the south section of the divided Dora, in the Mechanik district, says gunmen still roam the streets freely.
“I see them in the streets all the time; the American and the Iraqi army don’t dare to come into our areas, the gunmen only hide when they see US planes … they drive in cars with no windows so they can attack easily.
“Most of them are fighters from other areas who have settled here. I just saw two gunmen kidnap a man this morning from the highway; it’s my morning routine. I have to leave this area, I have to leave but where do I go.”

The cynics and pessimists among us will probably see the result of the surge, which as been to cement the ghettosation of Baghdad, as a deliberate ploy by the amerikans. After all what better way to ensure that the religious divisions in Iraqi society that their invasion has engendered, remain.
I’m not so sure – the whole strategy right since 2003 as soon as Baghdad was ‘conquered’ has been catch up football. These guys wouldn’t know how to get that far in front of themselves – they are too busy reacting to be pro-active.
Sure they might enjoy the fruits of their schism for a while but they aren’t able to see that Iraqi society is currently self repairing (eg al-Sadr’s militia ‘cull’). That complacency will cost a great many invaders lives when the backlash comes.
There was another little anecdote in the Guardian article which indicates the uneconomic structure of the ‘new’ regulated and sectarian stratified Baghdad:

“When we wanted to bring trucks to clean the area, we had to bring them from Ramadi (100km away). Do you think we can bring trucks from Shu’ala [a neighboring Shiite area] of course not, they are Mahdi army.”

The speaker was a young gung ho anti al-Qaeda sunni militiaman who naturally sees everything in terms of turf. his leaders won’t be nearly as black and white in their outlook and economic necessity will get the “Mahdi army” rubbish trucks in eventually. Hmm garbage wars? And we thought The Sopranos had finished.
This small cog in the wheel of amerika’s attempt to divide and rule is coming to recognize that winning – (his militia had successfully cleared their patch of other gangs) isn’t everything. That or maybe the penny has really dropped and he’s beginning to realize he lost.

“When I leave my area, I have another ID card,” say Laith. “Do I dare to come with my own? No.” He pauses for a second and then says: “But as long as I can stand in front of my house, that’s fine for me.”

Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 11 2007 22:22 utc | 34

Kabuki?
Does anyone else find it curious that a cluster of new initiatives, as b has noted so well, occurs (or becomes visible) in the ME during the very week + that Petraus is in D.C.? And while most eyes are riveted on his testimony before Congress.
Israel leaves a hole in Syria and fuel tanks in Turkey. Bolton and “an administration official” start the Syrian nuclear weapons meme in the echo chamber. British units are mobilized on the Iranian border. Gen Lynch, who commands forces south of Baghdad, announces construction of a new base on the Iranian border. Coincidence?
Petraus gave an answer, during the small bit of hearing that I actually listened to, which made me start wondering. Asked in the House hearings about the news report that day of the new Iranian border base, Petraus replied that it must be referring to an air base that is already operating near Kut.
However, Lynch’s description did not sound like it referred to an air base. Was Lynch actually informing us about a base that already exists, just to rattle the Iranian meme? Or is Petraus out of the loop on a new base announcement?
Lynch was, incidentally, the general who made all the noise in early July, when funding was on the line, about all the gains in Iraq falling apart if troops were to withdraw.
Is it possible that there is a schism inside the military, as within the Administration, and the attack-Iran faction is taking advantage of the absence of the commanding general in Iraq? Can’t see how this could be kept secret within miltary ranks. But then, in “third world” nations, it has always been risky for a leader to leave his own country, due to risk of coups.
Any ideas? Explanations?

Posted by: small coke | Sep 12 2007 18:03 utc | 36

CentCom Chief Fallon: Petraeus Is ‘An Ass-Kissing, Little Chickensh*t,’ ‘I Hate People Like That’

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) announced today that he will be asking Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) to call Fallon to testify on “his views on the region.” Webb decried the lack of independence in Petraeus’s reporting, observing that there are “a lot of control factors going on that haven’t been visible” from the one-sided testimony of Petraeus: WEBB: [T]here’s something of a kabuki going on right now. You know, the Petraeus report was brought in. On the one hand they’re calling it independent; on the other, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, from my understanding, gave a one-hour exclusive interview to Fox News after their first day of testimony. […]
So it was a very narrow and focused two days of hearings…we need to hear from people like Admiral Fallon and others to get a sense of how the region is in play. … He was, by many accounts, questioning keeping these troop levels this high. […]
So I’m going to be recommending to Senator Levin that we get Admiral Fallon in and get his views on the region.

Has Webb been reading MOA?…lol

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 13 2007 15:46 utc | 38

Fallon’s presentation to Bush of the case against Petraeus’ recommendation for keeping troop levels in Iraq at the highest possible level just before Petraeus was to go public with his recommendations was another sign that Petraeus’ role as chief spokesperson for the surge policy has created a deep rift between him and the nation’s highest military leaders. Bush presumably would not have chosen to invite an opponent of the surge policy to make such a presentation without lobbying by the top brass.
Fallon acquired a reputation for a willingness to stand up to powerful figures during his tenure as commander in chief of the Pacific Command from February 2005 to March 2007. He pushed hard for a conciliatory line toward China.
He demonstrated his independence from the White House when he refused in February to go along with a proposal to send a third naval carrier task force to the Persian Gulf, as reported by IPS in May. Fallon questioned the military necessity for the move, which would have signaled to Iran a readiness to go to war. Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy.

link
And Congress members would not be pushing for a faster exit from Iraq if they were not hearing it from “top brass” also.
Even the case that Petraus and Crocker presented in support of their official recommedation to keep forces near full surge levels until the ground forces are used up in April-July was tepid at best. It certainly did not ring with conviction. Substantiating evidence was weak, and neither of them sugar coated this.
Petraus acknowledged that overall policy and the safety of the US were beyond his area of responsibility, and offered no guarantees. Crocker was quoted a month ago as saying that he had no real hope for an effective Iraqi central government developing any time soon. Their only real cautions seemed to be about a precipitous retreat, and alternative dangers that too hasty a retreat would introduce to the whole region.
In other words, at this point, Petraus and Crocker are following orders. It wasn’t clear to me that they believed their specific recommendations enough to go to the mat for them. Anyone else have this impression?

Posted by: small coke | Sep 13 2007 17:06 utc | 40

“Crocker was quoted a month ago as saying that he had no real hope for an effective Iraqi central government developing any time soon.”
All part of the new plan. Groping toward partition.

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 13 2007 17:21 utc | 42