Northman's Fury

After all, I wouldn't be much of a blogger if I didn't have an oversized opinion of my intelligence level, and therefore qualified somehow to explain things to other people, now would I?

I came across this article the other day where Victor David Hanson asks the following:

For those who wish to give up the struggle in Iraq, go home, and stay clear of the Middle East, a final question: What would Mr. Assad in Syria, al Qaeda in Iraq, President Ahmadinejad in Iran, or Hamas and Hezbollah wish us to do — and why?

I assume he’s being facetious, but what the hell, why not pretend he’s actually serious about the question and actually answer it?

To start, as a story I posted earlier pointed out, lumping all of your enemies into a single group is not the most wise of courses. Not only has VDH lumped all sorts of Islamic groups and governments together, he has even added the secular Baathist government of Syria into the mix. One would think a military historian would be wiser about such things.

But let’s take them all one by one. We can start with Hezbollah and Hamas. Frankly, I don’t think they give a shit about what the US does in Iraq. Their focus is Israel, and their only concern with the US is its support of said nation. Since even a withdrawal from Iraq is unlikely to change the US’s support for Israel, I rather doubt they care. Hamas might have been disappointed in losing Saddam as a supporter, but that was over four years ago, and thanks to the instability resulting from the occupation, the oil-soaked regimes of Iran and Saudi Arabia are more than able to increase their support of both groups. Add the increased anti-Americanism that boosts their support base, and I’m pretty sure they’re quite happy with the US continuing to bleed in Iraq.

Al Qaeda in Iraq didn’t even exist before the invasion, and as the recent events in Anbar province have proven, the only reason they survive today is the continued presence of US forces in Iraq. Without the US soldiers to deal with, the Sunnis in Iraq would stop tolerating al Qaeda’s presence and wipe them out.

Although VDH didn’t bother to mention them, al Qaeda outside of Iraq has been very happy with the Iraq Waf. For one,, it has allowed them to rebuild in their home country of Afghanistan and Pakistan thanks to the fact that the US has been highly distracted elsewhere.

Syria has been struggling to deal with the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees that the Iraq War has caused. As the wingnutoshpere has repeatedly reminded folks, the situation is likely to get even worse if the US leaves, and for that reason alone, Mr. Assad is probably happy to see the US stay where they are. Add to that the fact that he is on the neacon hit list of leaders to be knocked off, and I’m sure he doesn’t mind the US military being bogged down and unable to move on to him.

What Mr. Ahmadinejad thinks isn’t really important, since it’s actually Ayatollah Khamenei who makes all the decisions, but we’ll assume VDH means the Iranian government as a whole.

Like Mr. Assad, they know they’re on the neocon hit list, so keeping the US tied down is in their best interests. Add to that little things like the ascendance of the Iranian-trained religious parties in the “democratically-elected” government of Iraq, the inability of the US to do much about the Iranian nuclear program, and the afore-mentioned rise in oil profits, and I seriously doubt the Iranians are unhappy with the continued US presence in Iraq.

It never cease to amaze me that the supporters of the Iraq War never seem to see that all of America’s major enemies are very happy with the situation there. Of course, if they did see that, they might have to rethink their support of Shrub, and any kind of thinking, but especially that kind, is the last thing they want to do.

Ah! Bullshit!

IRANIAN forces are being choppered over the Iraqi border to bomb Our Boys, intelligence chiefs say.

Military experts claim this worrying move means we are at WAR with Iran in all but name.

Last night an intelligence source told The Sun: “It is an extremely alarming development and raises the stakes considerably. In effect, it means we are in a full on war with Iran — but nobody has officially declared it.

I don't even have to check memeorandum to know that this will be the topic of discussion on the wingnut blogs for the next little while. Worrying about whether or not it makes sense is of secondary nature to making Iran look bad.

Given the fact that Iranian proxies control most of southern Iraq already, and add to that the fact that they can pretty much just drive or walk across the border, why would they bother to fly men and material across the border where the US can deploy the most high-tech radar systems on the planet? Not to mention satellite reconnaissance?

This smells to me like the bogus story that came out last year about Iran making Jews there wear yellow stars. Fear-mongering for the "Bomb Iran" crowd.

Nato concedes Afghan shortfalls

Nato has said it needs to do better in its operations in Afghanistan, after coming under criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Mr Karzai accused Nato and US-led troops of failing to co-ordinate with their Afghan allies, thereby causing civilian deaths.

A Nato spokesman said Mr Karzai had a right to be "disappointed and angry" over the scale of civilian casualties.

It came after a week in which up to 90 Afghan civilians were killed.

More civilians have been killed this year as a result of foreign military action than have been killed by insurgents, correspondents say.

And from just a few days ago,

Nato's secretary general has called for an investigation into the killings of 25 civilians in an air strike in the Afghan province of Helmand.

June 18

7 Afghan children killed in US-led airstrike

May 31

Afghan's anger over US bombing

Each time the old woman breathed out you could hear a small groan of pain as she sat, her head in one hand, her other shoulder shattered by shrapnel and fixed in a coarse plaster.

Her son Mohammad and his wife Khwara sat next to her - they were mourning the death of their 18-year-old son and her brother.

Both were among 57 killed - almost half of them women and children - when American forces bombed their village in Shindand, western Afghanistan, and destroyed 100 homes.

May 10

US airstrikes kill 21 civilians in Afghanistan

At least 21 civilians, including six children, have been killed in US air strikes in Afghanistan, leading to angry protests among locals.

The deaths brought the total of civilian deaths to almost 100 in the past two weeks and followed President Hamid Karzai's declaration that his people "can no longer accept casualties the way they occur".

The new round of "collateral damage" also came a day after the US military said it was "deeply ashamed" of the killings of 19 civilians by marines in early March.

Let's go back to January 3, 2007

NATO acknowledged Wednesday that the number of civilians killed by its forces in Afghanistan last year was too high, but said the Western alliance was working to change that in 2007.

"The single thing that we have done wrong and we are striving extremely hard to improve on (in 2007) is killing innocent civilians," Brig. Richard E. Nugee, the chief spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force, said.

Doing a fine job so far, aren't they?

This, in large part, is the true tragedy of the Afghan mission. The mission was one that had every possibility of succeeding, but has been lost by the continued and heavy use of airstrikes to make up for the fact that there are so few "boots on the ground" and because of "force protection" protocols by NATO and US forces.

So now instead of working to ensure the civilian population we are theoretically there to protect are actually protected, we have military spokespeople like Brig. General Votel claiming that he has no evidence that non-combatants were killed when they dropped 2,000lb bombs on a bunch of mud houses. Not really a surprise. The US has been consistent about lying about their mistaken bomb runs since at least 2002 when they wiped out a wedding party.

A year ago, William Lind wrote about the terrible stupidity of airstrikes in counterinsurgency operations. On Friday, I linked to a story that pointed out that the US military's own counterinsurgency manual says the same thing about airstrikes, and yet a year later and the number and frequency of the airstrikes has only gotten worse.

So we destroy what we're supposed to be rebuilding and kill who we're supposed to be protecting. There's no way we're going to win by following this path.

UPDATE: More Afghan civilians killed by foreign forces than by insurgents in 2007

but there are times I really hate being right.

Far from being defeated, Somalia's opposition groups are politically uniting, strengthening and planning a conference next month to hone their strategy for ousting the Somali government and the Ethiopian troops backing it, according to a recent statement issued by the groups and to a foreign diplomat in the Somali capital.

. . .

"Things are getting worse instead of better," the official said, stating what is perhaps obvious to families who have lost relatives to the insurgents' bombs and Ethiopian attacks.

. . .

In a pattern that analysts have compared to Iraq on a small scale, Ethiopia's incursion was followed by an insurgency

Gee, who would have guessed? I mean besides anyone who bothered to do a bare minimum of research into the situation. After all, if I could see this coming, it shouldn't have been too hard for anyone else.

to what I wrote on Tuesday. Apparently even being in a heavily-fortified base doesn't guarantee a break from the stress of a war zone.

but still sad to think about.

Of the 1,000 U.S. employees at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, only 10 have a working knowledge of Arabic, according to the State Department.

That is still a slight improvement from last year when, according to the Iraq Study Group, six people in the embassy spoke Arabic.

Who knew Bush's 50-year plan for Iraq was just the timeframe for getting the embassy staff up to speed?

Ian Welsh at the The Agonist.

When the news first came out of Abu Ghraib, due to one of America's perhaps 5 real journalists (the rest are bought and paid for shills and eunuchs), I said that odds were it came from the top. When the troops were put away and no officers were indicted, I said it was a complete breakdown of military discipline and responsibility. And now, as we know, Taguba is talking about how he was instructed not to investigate anyone but the MP's.

Let's be real clear - people were raped and tortured at the behest of America's government, with the knowledge and approval of the highest members of government. This rot didn't start at the bottom, it spread from the very very top.

And it was known in 2004, and the US re-elected George Bush anyway.

I'll never forget that, and until George Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and a number of generals are behind bars, I'll never entirely forgive it either. There is no greater crime against humanity than torturing someone. There is nothing more despicable than rape. And there is nothing more pathetic than senior officers refusing to accept responsibility for what their soldiers do, especially when there is every evidence they knew.

Read the rest. I have nothing to add.

U.S. commanders in Iraq are rejecting a recommendation by Army mental health experts that troops receive a one-month break for every three months in a combat zone, despite unprecedented levels of continuous fighting and worsening risks of mental stress.

Instead, commanders are trying to give troops two to three days inside heavily fortified bases after about eight days in the field, said Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson, chief aide to the ground forces commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno.

"We would never get the job done … if we went out for three months and came back" for one, Anderson said.

U.S. forces in Iraq spend more time in combat without a break than those who fought in Vietnam or World War II, according to Army psychologists who studied troops in Iraq.

Of course, anyone who has been in a high stress position can tell you that taking a couple of days off does nothing for your stress levels. It takes several days out of the stressful environment before the mind starts readjusting to a lower stress level. The proposed solution given by the commanders is useless, and I'm betting they know it.

Of course, the mental health of the soldiers isn't their priority, its keeping the mission functional for as long as possible, or at least into the next President's term.

As usual with this administration, the story is even worse than it appears:

The Army is considering whether it will have to extend the combat tours of troops in Iraq (again) if President Bush opts to maintain the recent buildup of forces through spring 2008.

Acting Army Secretary Pete Geren testified Tuesday that the service is reviewing other options, including relying more heavily on Army reservists or Navy and Air Force personnel, so as not to put more pressure on a stretched active-duty force.

Most soldiers spend 15 months in combat with a guaranteed 12 months home, a rotation plan that already has infuriated Democrats because it exceeds the service's goal of giving troops equal time home as in combat. In coming weeks, the Senate will vote on a proposal by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., that would restrict deployments.

"It's too early to look into the next year, but for the Army we have to begin to plan," Geren told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We have to look into our options."

Large teams of newly trained suicide bombers are reportedly being sent from Afghanistan to Canada, the U.S. and other countries, ABC News claims.

Well, maybe, but it certainly sounds scary, doesn't it? I guess the only thing to do is give up more of our freedoms to the government. After all, if the hate us or our freedoms, all we have to do is eliminate our freedoms and they won't hate us anymore. Either that or we could go invade some other country to keep fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.

Wait a minute! We are fighting them over there, and they're sending guys over here! Does that mean this ridiculously brilliant strategy isn't working?

ABC quoted Dadullah as saying,"These Americans, Canadians, British and Germans come here to Afghanistan from faraway places. Why shouldn't we go after them?"

Damn! Guess not.

To be serious for a moment, this actually isn't all that bad. The biggest threat and greatest worry for counter-terror in North America and Europe is the radicalization of resident Muslims that end up carrying out attacks like those in London. If the Taliban has to send suicide bombers over, its an indication that Muslims in our country are remaining stubbornly loyal, and without a base of support, foreign terrorists are relatively easy to pick out.

And besides, I'm sure our wonderful new no-fly list will keep us all safe.

Update: As a friend of mine at work pointed out: How effective are these guys going to be given the fact they allowed a journalist in to videotape them all?

Also, maybe their training wasn't as complete as it should have been?

The Washington Post has an article today regarding the increasing use of private military companies by the US in Iraq. The article focuses on the relatively benign use of these companies for logistical support rather than their more controversial uses such as interrogators at Abu Ghraib or in more offensive operations. It also brushes over the main reason for their legal immunity, put in place by the CPA in the earliest days of the occupation, keeping them outside of Iraqi laws, and refusing to put them under US military juristiction. However, it does cover some of the main points.

1) Their size and number has seen massive growth since the Iraq War began.
2) Their pay levels are vastly higher than their US Army equivalents.
3) Their use allows the Pentagon to keep actual US military numbers at a lower level, and, because their casualties don't get the same amount of attention, makes it appear as though the occupation is less costly in that area as well.

The point that worries me about these companies is what is going to happen after the US eventually leaves Iraq. That is going to leave a very large pool of individuals well-trained in counterinsurgency operations, used to quite sizable paycheques, all looking for work, or at least new "business opportunities".

There's a lot of places where such talents could be put to use. Hell, they've already turned up in New Orleans after Katrina, and there's lots of places they'd be under much less scrutiny. And there's a lot of people, both those representing governments and those on the other side, as well as a number of multi-national corporations, who will probably be hiring. That, to a large extent, is normal.

The real interesting part to me, is whether or not some of the less scrupulous of these folks decide that the best way to go, is to create some of those business opportunities for themselves.

The story this morning on the CBC was that the Canadian Government still has no plans to ask for Omar Khadr's return to Canada despite the charges against him being dismissed.

The Khadr imprisonment has always presented me with something of a quandary. On one side, he, and most of his family, fit the basic definition of Islamic extremists, though I haven’t read anything to indicate they were looking to launch attacks within Canada.

On the other hand, he also fits the definition of a child soldier at the time of his capture, and he’s being charged for killing a US soldier, during a firefight, in a war zone. I’ve always had a really hard time seeing how this justified either criminal or particularly terror charges.

And finally, he’s a Canadian citizen. Even Tony “The Poodle” Blair demanded that British citizens be released from Guantanamo and be granted their proper rights. How spineless are we if we can’t do the same?

The recent overpass bombing that killed three US troops is just the latest in a number of bombings directed at bridges in Iraq. A couple of recent posts I’ve read are beginning to put together what this is doing to the US strategic picture.

First, from fester at The Newshoggers:

The basic strategic goal of the campaign is to reduce option space and create more bottlenecks and chokepoints that force a predictable pooling of targets and rent seeking opportunities.

Limit the number of routes that US supply convoys and patrols can take from place to place, and it becomes easier to set up roadside bombs and ambushes. The second post comes from Ian Welsh at The Agonist:

The more you restrict the US's ability to reinforce isolated positions, the more likely it becomes that you can overrun them and either destroy them, or take hostages.

. . .

As the isolation continues, eventually US forces in the Governates will come under attacks designed to overrun them. If those attacks are succesful, the US will be forced to abandon entire governates. And with secure bases to operate with against the capital, the endgame is on. Add this to the continued and increasingly succesful attempts to cut off ground supply, and the US situation in Baghdad becomes more and more tenuous. While the US can support a significant number of troops by air supply alone, it won't be pretty at all. And if US forces in the capital are really cut off, that means their retreat rout is cut off as well. Can you say Dien Bien Phu? Sure you can.

This isn’t a new scenario. Last year, William Lind and Pat Lang each came out with versions of what could happen to US forces due to constriction of their long and vulnerable supply lines coming up through Kuwait. Lang was also the guy who turned up what may be turn out to be a foreshadowing memo regarding shortages in food supplies for the huge American Embassy.

The attacks on bridges is bringing into focus how the supply lines can be cut, and how the options left open to American forces are being slowly constricted. The Dien Bien Phu moment is probably still a fair ways off, but its time is getting closer.

As Ian says, the assumption that the US can stay in Iraq for as long as they choose while the debate regarding withdrawal meanders along is exactly that: an assumption. A time is fast approaching when the choice to leave will no longer be up to the US government.

Afghan police mistakenly thought U.S. troops on a nighttime mission were Taliban fighters and opened fire on them, prompting U.S. forces to return fire and call in attack aircraft, killing seven Afghan police, officials said Tuesday.

. . .

President Hamid Karzai's spokesman labeled the shooting at a remote police checkpoint in the eastern province of Nangarhar "a tragic incident" caused by a lack of communication.

"The police forces were not aware of the coalition's operation," said spokesman Karim Rahimi. "The police checkpoint in the area thought that they were the enemy, so police opened fire on the coalition, and then the coalition thought that the enemies were firing on them, so they returned fire back."

A lot is being left unsaid there. The “lack of communication” is probably due to the fact that the US troops probably don’t trust the local police force not to tell the Taliban about its operations.

"I thought they were Taliban, and we shouted at them to stop, but they came closer and they opened fire," said Khan Mohammad, one of the policemen at the post. "I'm very angry. We are here to protect the Afghan government and help serve the Afghan government, but the Americans have come to kill us."

It may not have been true before, but I'm willing to bet it will be the next time.

Via Cernig at The Newshoggers, an excellent post by Ian Welsh at The Agonist detailing something I have tried to explain in pieces here.

The Way of the Weak: Guerilla Warfare

A very well put together essay on the fundamentals of guerilla warfare, certainly more comprehensive then any of my previous attempts to bring up some of these points. Well worth the read.

Turkey has apparently sent a few thousand troops across the border into Iraq in pursuit of Kurdish terrorists. Watching this situation unfold reminds of a scenario I read regarding how the US-Iran war would get under way.

The US would launch some bombs at the nuclear sites, Iran would retaliate with either terror strikes, proxy attacks, or a blockade of the Straits of Hormuz, forcing the US to ramp up its attacks, causing Iran to ramp up its attacks, and so on until full-scale war was a reality and all without any actual declarations or going to Congress for permission.

Thankfully, that scenario has never fully played out, but it's beginning to appear that the Turks and Kurds are begin to play their own version of the escalation game in Northern Iraq.

Given that Iraq is such a downer, the War Nerd takes a look at the far more entertaining struggle going on in Sri Lanka, with particular focus on the Flying Tigers.

One of the major storylines I’ve been watching with some interest is the situation developing on the northern Iraqi border, basically Iraqi Kurdistan and the Turks who are getting increasingly militant about their activities.

On Sunday, word came of Turkish troops shelling positions in northern Iraq. This isn’t the first time that this has happened, but the Turks have also been moving large numbers of troops to the border region and rattling sabres about a possible incursion for the last several weeks.

This morning came news of an attack in eastern Turkey, (initially reported as a suicide attack but nothing regarding that in the updated story). which will ramp up tensions even further. The wave of terror attacks has put the civilian government on side with the military about invading northern Iraq. It’s entirely possible that the Kurdish separatists are trying t provoke rash action from the Turks. After all, other recent large scale attacks by conventional militaries have only helped those fighting them, like Hezbollah in Lebanon when Israel decided to go punitive on them.

It seems probable that if the Turks do go for a full-scale military incursion, it will be similar in intent to the Israelis; smash their opponents and degrade their military capabilities, but it appears they are making much greater and better preparations than the Israelis did. For one, I don’t think the Turks expect they can do the job with a couple days of “shock ‘n’ awe” with their air force. They’ve been sending ground forces to the area, and that likely means they expect to use them.

The possible Turkish invasion brings up all sorts of interesting questions. The obvious one is what the US is going to do. The Kurdish region is one of the only stable places in Iraq, and the only one where the US presence is thought of as a good thing. Turkey is, of course, a NATO ally of the US as well as a long-standing ally of Israel. Now which side would you want to take when the high velocity metal begins flying?

Standing aside isn’t really a good option, because the US standing aside while the PKK made northern Iraq its home base for attacks against Turkey is how this mess got to where it is.

The question that interests me though is what the peshmerga will do. Not the units still in Iraqi Kurdistan, but the units that put on Iraqi army uniforms and have been among the most effective of what counts for effectiveness in the Iraqi military. Do they stick around in southern Iraq assisting the US attempts at pacification, or do they troop north en masse to defend their homeland?

This could be an interesting test of just where their loyalty really lies.

May was quite clearly one of the bloodier months of the Iraq War. The number most news articles have focused on is the number of US troops killed, 127 by last count. The other number that just came out, is the Iraqi civilian toll, at least 1,944.

The rise in US casualties is not unanticipated. The "surge" strategy that General Petraeus is trying to make work is based on the idea that the US needs to get its troops out of the big, heavily fortified bases and into closer contact with Iraqis in an attempt to restore some sense of security. Implicit in that strategy is increased risk and increased casualties.

Most of the coverage I've read about the US death toll leaves out that fact. People have just been critical becasue of the increased toll without apparently much thought to its purpose. It's indicative of the fact that our societies have become adverse to casualties. That's partly why Petraeus' plan was never put to large-scale use before, and it's partly why it will fail, and would have failed even if the US had enough troops to make a real try at it.

The whole concept of "force protection" that guides the actions of the US in Iraq and NATO in Afghanistan is to keep the number of soldiers' bodies arriving home to a minimum. The feeling is that people are unwilling to accept many troops being killed and the reaction to the recent US death spike indicates that they're right. That means using air strikes and artillery barrages to deal with insurgents rather than infantry. It means keeping free-fire zones around bases and vehicles on patrols because interacting too closely with the natives leaves open the possibility of suicide bombers closing in.

In the short-term, these tactics do help to keep soldiers out of harm's way, but they also greatly increase the number of civilians who get killed as "collateral damage". That increases the resentment to the soldier's presence, which increases support for the insurgents, which increases both their numbers and effectiveness.

Long-term, it's a losing proposition.

Back to the deaths in May. Petraeus has the right idea to use troops rather than bombs to try and bring things under control. Making the sacrifice of increased casualties for long-term stability is one of the only ways to rob an insurgency of its support. That's where the second number comes in. The sacrifice, or as much of it as Petraues can make, isn't working. Too few troops, too much time and deaths already passed, too many different enemies and sides to deal with.

The sacrifice is being wasted, and for that, criticism is justifed.