J's Cafe Nette

Archive for the ‘The Surge’ Category

After the Petraeus report it seems the Congressional Democrats’ hope for Republican defections to order a quick withdrawal from Iraq is going to end up in frustration again.

Senate Republicans, bolstered by Army Gen. David H. Petraeus’ war report this week, are closing ranks and say Democrats will continue to fall far shy of the votes needed to force a pullout from Iraq.

Republicans facing intense antiwar pressure in home states, such as Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, and the party’s war critics, including Sens. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, say the general’s congressional testimony helped persuade them not to switch their votes.

“I’m supportive of a reasonable plan which they offered,” Mr. Lugar said on PBS’ “NewsHour” after Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq, called for withdrawing about 30,000 troops by July.

President Bush, in a prime-time address tonight, is expected to endorse the general’s plan to return to the pre-surge force strength of 130,000 troops by July.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who failed repeatedly to muster enough votes to compel the president to accept a pullout plan, yesterday said he will try again next week with measures to force significantly larger troop reductions.

“I call on Senate Republicans not to walk lockstep with the president as they have done for years,” the Nevada Democrat said. “It is time to come over and join us.”

Mr. Reid said Democrats will introduce four to six war bills, including measures for large-scale troop reductions and to transition the mission from combat to training Iraqi forces and conducting counterterrorism operations.

He did not provide details of the legislation, but the characterization of measures was nearly identical to failed bills from earlier this year.

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott has been checking the votes and feels the Democrats will, once again, fall short of the 60 votes necessary to pass any of these bills.

Someone once said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. This is the very definition of partisan insanity on the part of the Democrats, but they really don’t seem to have any plan other than get out of Iraq.

Republican leaders also say the Democrat-led Congress’ fixation on the war is preventing action on essential legislation, such as fixing the alternative minimum tax and passing spending bills for the budget year beginning Oct. 1.

Can anyone name any significant legislation passed by this Congress?

It’s been eight months since the Democrats took over the legislative branch of our federal government and, other than a minimum wage hike attached to a war funding bill, no significant legislation has been passed.

They say Americans voted for a change in November, and maybe they’re right, but I doubt the American electorate voted for the same futile votes to be taken over and over again.

The Senate is going to be hard for the Republicans in the next election due to retirements and so many senators’ terms being up for re-election.

Based on the last election I’d say things are very close in this country as the Democrats didn’t win huge majorities in either chamber or huge victories in many districts or states.

If the American people begin to see the surge working they are not likely to insist we give up. We like victory too much and I doubt we have changed that much over this one war.

Americans need to understand we must prevail in this war against radical Islam or we will all be doomed to their rule over us in the future.

Tweet This Post

Senior congressional aides are saying the White House wants to limit the Petraeus report to a private congressional briefing, while the White House says that has been considered but they will not shield Gen. Petraeus from public testimony to the Congress and will abide by the legislation passed in May.

The congressional aides say the White House wanted the Secretaries of State and Defense to deliver the public testimony, but since the White House acknowledged making the proposal and still says Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will make the public testimony, it seems like much ado about nothing at this point. In other words, it seems settled it will be public testimony by the General and the Ambassador in addition to a private briefing, so why go public with the argument when it was already decided?

Senior congressional aides said yesterday that the White House has proposed limiting the much-anticipated appearance on Capitol Hill next month of Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker to a private congressional briefing, suggesting instead that the Bush administration’s progress report on the Iraq war should be delivered to Congress by the secretaries of state and defense.

White House officials did not deny making the proposal in informal talks with Congress, but they said yesterday that they will not shield the commanding general in Iraq and the senior U.S. diplomat there from public congressional testimony required by the war-funding legislation President Bush signed in May. “The administration plans to follow the requirements of the legislation,” National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in response to questions yesterday.

Gen. Petreaus is quoted by the AP in the same article as stating that by about a year or so from now we will have a smaller troop presence in Iraq.

Speaking to reporters traveling with him in Iraq yesterday, Petraeus said he is preparing recommendations on troop levels while getting ready to go to Washington next month. He declined to give specifics.

“We know that the surge has to come to an end,” Petraeus said, according to the Associated Press. “I think everyone understands that, by about a year or so from now, we’ve got to be a good bit smaller than we are right now. The question is how do you do that . . . so that you can retain the gains we have fought so hard to achieve and so you can keep going.”

Tweet This Post

It appears the surge is working now that the full complement of troops is in place.

Fed up with being part of a group that cuts off a person’s face with piano wire to teach others a lesson, dozens of low-level members of al-Qaeda in Iraq are daring to become informants for the US military in a hostile Baghdad neighbourhood.

The ground-breaking move in Doura is part of a wider trend that has started in other al-Qaeda hotspots across the country and in which Sunni insurgent groups and tribal sheikhs have stood together with the coalition against the extremist movement.

“They are turning. We are talking to people who we believe have worked for al-Qaeda in Iraq and want to reconcile and have peace,” said Colonel Ricky Gibbs, commander of the 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, which oversees the area.

The sewage-filled streets of Doura, a Sunni Arab enclave in south Baghdad, provide an ugly setting for what US commanders say is al-Qaeda’s last stronghold in the city. The secretive group, however, appears to be losing its grip as a “surge” of US troops in the neighbourhood – part of the latest effort by President Bush to end the chaos in Iraq – has resulted in scores of fighters being killed, captured or forced to flee.

“Al-Qaeda’s days are numbered and right now he is scrambling,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Stephen Michael, who commands a battalion of 700 troops in Doura.

A key factor is that local people and members of al-Qaeda itself have become sickened by the violence and are starting to rebel, Lieutenant-Colonel Michael said. “The people have got to deny them sanctuary and that is exactly what is happening.”

Read the rest.

Tweet This Post

A recent press release from United States Central Command tells a bit of a different story on the situation in parts of Iraq than those we read in the newspapers daily.

Surge progress may lead to troop reductions in northern Iraq, general says

BAGHDAD — Now at full strength, the U.S. troop surge in Iraq is showing “definitive progress” and the number of forces serving in Iraq’s Multi-National Division-North could be halved by summer 2009, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon said.

A reduction of U.S. forces under the general’s command could begin as early as January 2008, he told Pentagon reporters via videoconference.

Mixon, commander of both Multi-National Division-North and the U.S. Army’s 25th Infantry Division, is responsible for six Iraqi provinces in northern Iraq, including the city of Baqubah — site of the ongoing Operation Arrowhead Ripper.

He said he has given U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander, Multi-National Corps-Iraq, a plan indicating a possible reduction of force in Multi-National Division-North during 2008.

Mixon said the current debate over troop withdrawal should revolve around reaching a strategic “end state.”

“It seems to me that we should first decide what we want the end state to be in Iraq, and how is that end state important to the United States of America, to this region and to the world, and then determine how we can reach that end state, and how much time that will take,” he said. “To me, that seems to be the most important thing, because there will be consequences of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq.”

“It cannot be a strategy based on, ‘Well, we need to leave,’” he added. “That’s not a strategy, that’s a withdrawal.”

More here.

I find it most interesting that Congress is pushing for these timelines when they certainly know the information dispatched from those with boots on the ground. Could it be they wish to take credit for an “early withdrawal” when they know very well what the game plan is?

I say that is very possible, however, they should be careful as the military will not and cannot plan a war around the whims of those on either side of the aisle in Congress. They have an option to defund this war they do not have the right however, to interfere in the planning and execution of the war. Oversight is one thing, strategic planning another entirely.

Also, the selective “cherry picking” of the press when it comes to statements made by those in command has been shown again.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tweet This Post

Michael Yon was a guest on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show yesterday. In reading the transcript there were a few points I found interesting.

HH: Now Michael Yon, a lot of people don’t know the significance of Baquba. And so can you explain what peace in Baquba means for the larger war effort?

MY: Well, it’s huge, because al Qaeda had claimed Baquba as their capitol, their worldwide capitol. And you might recall one of the things that kind of upsets people about my reporting is I said Iraq was in a civil war, and I said that way back in February of 2005, and I continue to do so. But when I first wrote that, I was in Baquba, in 2005, and I spent two or three months here. And it was just total…you could see it, and you could see al Qaeda was trying to foment that civil war, because that’s their underlying strategy, is to do that. And so getting, fracturing al Qaeda here, and al Qaeda alienating so many Iraqis, it’s helping us to put a damper on the civil war.

This is why I like to read Michael. While I may not think there is a civil war in Iraq, he reports as he sees and feels. His reports are not dispatched to please politicians or citizens who are motivated by their political affiliations.

One other exchange I found very interesting applied to what is transpiring in Congress right now. The name of the Senator is of no consequence as it could have been any one from either side of the aisle and I believe the answer would have been the same. As a matter of fact, Guss posted an interesting editorial earlier today which I believe is worth a read and helps explain how both sides are running for their political lives from this war.

HH: Now yesterday, Harry Reid said on the floor of the Senate that the surge has failed. Do you think there’s any factual basis for making that assertion, Michael Yon, from what you’ve seen in Iraq over the last many months?

MY: He’s wrong, he’s wrong. It has absolutely not failed, and in fact, I’m finally willing to say it in public. I feel like it’s starting to succeed. And you know, I’m kind of stretching a little bit, because we haven’t gone too far into it, but I can see it from my travels around, for instance, in Anbar and out here in Diyala Province as well. Baghdad’s still very problematic. But there’s other areas where you can clearly see that there is a positive effect. And the first and foremost thing we have to do is knock down al Qaeda. And with them alienating so many Iraqis, I mean, they’re almost doing it for us. I mean, yeah, it takes military might to finally like wipe them out of Baquba, but it’s working. I mean, I sense that the surge is working. Reid is just wrong.

I hope for our sake (meaning the country) and for the citizens of Iraq that Michael is right in his assessment.

Complete interview can be accessed here.

Tweet This Post

Something rang true with me this morning when reading Grim at Blackfive.

The whole point of the Surge is to address this particular problem. It is six months in the making, if you count from the start of the buildup. If the politicos in Washington set goals that Iraq could not realize, that is their own fault. It is the fault of those whose goals were set without bothering to take any account of military reality.

We’ve got people who are risking their lives every day to give Iraq the chance embodied by the Surge. There are 25 million people in Iraq whose lives depend on the outcome. These games in DC and among the press, they are beyond reprehensible. Real lives are at stake here — better lives than the ones lived by these politicians and journalists.

It is oh so easy to be the “Armchair General” or to “Monday morning Quarterback” all decisions made in Washington in the past.

The President has often said most of his decisions as to operations in Iraq were made after hearing and taking advice from the Top Brass with boots on the ground. That being said, final decisions were in his hands and are his responsibility. However, I believe both the Commander in Chief and those doing the “hard work” in this war see well beyond Iraq.

Would I like to bring home every soldier, sailor, marine and air force member serving in foreign territory..that goes without saying.

Do I believe as Americans we should expect Iraq to field a strong government of their own..absolutely, but standing up that government will be hard work, especially when dealing with the various sects within the country.

Unfortunately, I believe no harder than it would be to stand up a government today in Washington DC with the partisanship and corruption we have on both sides of the aisle.

Tweet This Post

The less famous cousin of “Anonymous Sources”, named “Anonymous Officials” and another one named “Anonymous Senior Official” have told the New York Times there is an “ongoing discussion” in the White House as to strategy to stop more Republican senators from defecting from their support for the war in Iraq.

According to the “Anonymous” family, the discussion centers around when the president should announce a pullback of forces in the dangerous Baghdad area as part of the surge.

White House officials fear that the last pillars of political support among Senate Republicans for President Bush’s Iraq strategy are collapsing around them, according to several administration officials and outsiders they are consulting. They say that inside the administration, debate is intensifying over whether Mr. Bush should try to prevent more defections by announcing his intention to begin a gradual withdrawal of American troops from the high-casualty neighborhoods of Baghdad and other cities.

Mr. Bush and his aides once thought they could wait to begin those discussions until after Sept. 15, when the top field commander and the new American ambassador to Baghdad are scheduled to report on the effectiveness of the troop increase that the president announced in January. But suddenly, some of Mr. Bush’s aides acknowledge, it appears that forces are combining against him just as the Senate prepares this week to begin what promises to be a contentious debate on the war’s future and financing.

Four more Republican senators have recently declared that they can no longer support Mr. Bush’s strategy, including senior lawmakers who until now had expressed their doubts only privately. As a result, some aides are now telling Mr. Bush that if he wants to forestall more defections, it would be wiser to announce plans for a far more narrowly defined mission for American troops that would allow for a staged pullback, a strategy that he rejected in December as a prescription for defeat when it was proposed by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

I don’t know what the thinking is in high government and it gives me a headache just imagining what stress everyone has on him/her trying to figure out how to accomplish what they want to accomplish while knowing Congress is breathing down their necks for a withdrawal date.

I am not doubting the truthfulness of this story, but I just get tired of people in high places running their mouths off to newspaper reporters, but don’t want their names attached to the report. Such is life in Washington DC.

We’ll see what we’ll see.

Tweet This Post

A reader of my former blog by the name of Caleb has written an article about the surge, based on information from a source who is high up in the military structure of our country.

Caleb has given me permission to post this story on this site.

We have all heard what Gen. Barry McCaffrey has said, and now I want you to read the other side of that story.

I have graciously been offered the chance to do a guest post on a piece of information that I received regarding early results of “The Surge” in Iraq. Since this provides some optimistic early assessments, you will not likely see it on your TV news any time soon.

The writer of what is presented here cautions that it is still extremely early in the game, and it is no where near time to break out a cold Bud in celebration. The writer had occasion to talk to Gen. Petraeus and wrote about the conversation on March 20, 2007.

In one important point, Gen Petraeus said that, “People realize they’re not going to just leave them like we did in the past.” This has been a real sticking point with particularly the Shia in the southern half of Iraq. We left them hanging out before and the marsh Arabs (Shia) paid a terrible price at the hands of Saadam.

In another telling point, Gen. Petraeus said, “I walked down the streets of Ramadi a few days ago, in a soft cap eating an ice cream with the mayor on one side of me and the police chief on the other, having a conversation.” The general noted that this simple act wouldn’t have been possible just a few months ago. He noted, “And nobody shot at us.” The general points out that there is still a very long way to go, but major improvements are being noted.

When asked what tactics are working, the general said, “We got down at the people level and are staying. Once the people know we are going to be around, than all kinds of things start to happen.”

The general noted that where once they were scraping the bottom of the barrel for intelligence, now they have the beginnings of an intelligence overload. The general said, “After our guys are in a neighborhood for four or five days, the people realize they’re not going to just leave them like we did in the past. Then they begin to come in with so much information on the enemy that we can’t process it fast enough.”

The general reports that even the tribal leaders in Sunni al Anbar province have had enough of al Qaeda and the sectarian violence that they foment, all the civilian Iraqi deaths. The general reports that these tribal leaders are all entrepreneurial businessmen, and the violence is really hurting business and their wallets.

One of the civil projects that the violence had put on hold was a large hospital in the Sunni Triangle. Now we are there daily, the violence in down, and the hospital project is back on track. So are similar infrastructure projects. There is now work for the people to do to earn a living. The Sheiks have seen the misery that al Qaeda delivers and are encouraging the young Iraqis to join the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police and make a difference in their country. And they are turning out in droves.

Petraeus is using a similar formula in Baghdad’s Sadr City. They are clearing it neighborhood by neighborhood. The troops literally move in. They are mainly US Army and Marines with the Iraqi Army supporting them. That ratio is reversed, however, in some areas. The troops stay in the neighborhood. They do NOT go back to the large fortified bases every evening. Petraeus says that the results have been dramatic.

“We’re using ’soft knock’ clearing procedures and bringing the locals in on our side,” he said. The general notes that the local people fear and loath al Qaeda. This new procedure is allowing the locals to begin to trust our guys, and they are gradually coming over to our side. When they saw that we were just returning to our bases each evening and thus allowing al Qaeda to own the neighborhoods at night, they were afraid to help us for fear of being tortured and killed. Now they are seeing the change in our methods and responding.

Another big change has been our targeting of gathering places, like markets and mosques, for protective actions. Concrete barriers are being placed to prohibit vehicle bombs from getting into the heart of crowds of folks.

Also, with real jobs becoming more and more available, the people are less inclined to join local militias or groups like the Mahdi Army of Maqtada al Sadr. General Petraeus also notes that the Prime Minister, who is Shia, is actually getting out in Sunni areas like Ramadi and doing politician type stuff to win over the Sunnis to the central government.

General Petraeus estimates that about half of the al Qaeda leaders that were in Baghdad at the start of the surge have fled or killed or captured. He says that we are atritting then “at a fearsome rate.”

Another positive step by Petraeus has been his rewriting of the Rules of Engagement. They had gotten so PC that they were causing our trigger pullers to hesitate for that split second that gets you killed in combat. The general says that some commanders down from his level had placed even more restriction on the troops because they were afraid that their careers would be ruined by some JAG prosecution of soldiers for decisions taken in the heat of battle.

General Petraeus says that he has cleared up the ambiguities and has prohibited anyone other than himself from initiating changes in the rules. He also has prohibited lower ranking officers from issuing “supplemental guidance” to their troops regarding the ROE.

In a previous tour in Iraq, when he was in command near the Syrian border, Petraeus became known as “King David.” He is regarded by all that know him as one of the brightest and most capable officers in today’s Army. He just finished rewriting the military’s book on urban warfare and insurgencies before being appointed to replace Gen. Casey in overall charge of American troops in Iraq. Retired Gen. Paul Vallely said that Gen. Petraeus “was the perfect man for the job.” when he was appointed to his current assignment.

The person that wrote this assessment opines that early indicators are positive and that early signs are that we are winning. Gen. Petraeus cautiously noted that, “We’ll be able to evaluate the situation for sure by late summer.” The author here, who is a retired Army officer and current military contractor, says that our job now is to give Gen. Petraeus and his troops time and space to get the job done, to actually win this war.

I have been extremely critical of Pres. Bush for the restrictions that he has placed on our military’s methods and abilities to fight this war. I will continue to be. No war should ever be fought in a PC manner. It causes us unnecessary casualties. That said, nothing matches my loathing and disgust for the “cut and run” crowd of mostly Democrats, aided and abetted by some very whiny and wimpy Republicans. Am I questioning their patriotism? YES! Now let us all get together behind Gen. Petraeus and our marvelous warriors, and win this darn thing and then come home.

Eagles up!

Caleb

As usual we ask if anyone has dissenting opinions to express them in a kind way and please do not say anything bad about our military. They are not the politicians who sent them to war.

Tweet This Post