Article

2006-06-13 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ed 2006-06-13 08:30|| || Front Page|| [11125 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 You might also follow people around. The terrorists have a network centered in Baghdad, they will be coming and going, so gather some intel.

Posted by wxjames 2006-06-13 09:47|| 2006-06-13 09:47|| Front Page Top

#2 About F'N time! Let's start with Mookie's Crew.

Posted by doc 2006-06-13 10:09|| 2006-06-13 10:09|| Front Page Top

#3 Tip of the iceberg, much more work that will not be made public until after opns

Posted by Captain America 2006-06-13 10:28|| 2006-06-13 10:28|| Front Page Top

#4 this looks like the big summer op to retake Baghdad thats been rumored for some time - they were just waiting for the new govt. And i bet Captn America is right, and theres alot more about this we wont know till its begun.

Interesting question - of the 75000, how many will be americans, how many Iraqi army, how many Iraqi police/interior ministry forces.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-13 11:09|| 2006-06-13 11:09|| Front Page Top

#5 This will only work

if Tater doesn't succeed in creating a takeover in some provincial capital down south

if Sistani supports it

if the Sunni terrorists don't get a major push going in Ramadi

and a few other conditions

I hope it works but it might not.

Posted by mhw 2006-06-13 11:20|| 2006-06-13 11:20|| Front Page Top

#6 mhw -

1. Im sure Sistani supports it. This is a Dawa led govt, that still has SCIRI in it, and Sistanis own loyalist Sharistani as Oil Minister. Theres no daylight between Sistani and this govt, AFAICT

2. The insurgents already hold 90% of Ramadi. Cant do much more than that, unless they attack the USMC prepared positions head on. Thats only a recipe for more dead insurgents. Yes, the insurgents who arent in Baghdad can try a diversion elsewhere, but Im not sure theres much decisive they can do.

3. Tater, OTOH, is the big question mark. He can cooperate, make this easy, and live to fight another day (as he has so often in the past) OR he can decide to hit the mattresses against the govt.

Now if Tater goes to war against the govt, he COULD try a diversion in the south. But thats always been his weaker area, where hes lost repeatedly in the past. Going after a southern city, while losing his base in Sadr City, is a way to flame out. The more conservative strategy is to try to hold out in Sadr City, till the govt gives up. Either way, he can make the operation very difficult, if he so chooses.

One of the advantages of having just gotten Zarqi, is to give the govt more credibility with the SHIA street, and so lessen Taters ability to say that he is the only real protection for Shia.

Note, BTW, this is the same Tater who reached out to Sunnis in 2004. A snake he is.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-13 13:07|| 2006-06-13 13:07|| Front Page Top

#7 LH

1. I'm not sure Sistani will stay supportive. What if a bunch of Shia are killed in the op and several dozen Shia newspapers start screaming 'massacre'? For that matter, what if they just start screaming 'massacre' even without anyone being killed.

2. The Sunni terrorists in Ramadi are currently somewhat on the quiet side. Suppose they kidnap and messily execute a bunch of Iraqi govt officials or, for that matter a bunch of civilians who the terrorists claim are govt sympathizers?

Posted by mhw 2006-06-13 13:54|| 2006-06-13 13:54|| Front Page Top

#8 1. I presume everyone in Iraq knows who is behind which newspaper. Of course if theres reason to believe that serious mistakes were made, Sistani will join in complaining, calling for investigation, etc. As Maliki himself did wrt Haditha. But I doubt he will call for the op to be called off. The only circumstances I could see that happening is if Sadr is offering a compromise "leave me alone, and I PROMISE to stop killing Sunnis, and you can have my RPGs, but we get to keep our AK-47's" or something like that, and the govt seems to hardline in negotiating with him - Sistani might try to play peacemaker in ways inconvenient to Maliki. But that require Tater to make the first move.

2. again, AFAICT, the insurgents are already trying to kidnap anyone they can, kill govt sympathizers, etc. I dont think theres much being held back. Is Ramadi quiet? whenever you hear about US casualties these days, its usually from Ramadi. If youre not hearing about massacres, well IIUC thats cause there really isnt much of Ramadi thats out of insurgent control except for where US Marines or Iraqi forces are at any given moment.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-13 14:04|| 2006-06-13 14:04|| Front Page Top

#9 LH

1. we'll see --

2. I don't agree completely with your 'their already doing all the damage they can' theory of Ramadi. It is certainly true that the terrorists are trying for some hits and enjoy killing whatever infidel they can and whatever Iraqi soldier they can. However, they have their own agenda as well as an AlQ agenda. The local Ramadi terrorists also want to extort money from the locals (including the local govt), lord it over hometown non AlQ gangs, coerce local women into arranged marriages with favored stooges, etc. Storming a govt building and taking hostages gets in the way of these activities. Thus it takes an initiative from the hard core of AlQ to force the local terrorists to drive harder (kind of like Darth telling Jargerod that 'perhaps I can find new ways to motivate them').

Posted by mhw 2006-06-13 16:51|| 2006-06-13 16:51|| Front Page Top

#10 AP
Updated: 7:44 p.m. ET May 22, 2006
RAMADI, Iraq - Whole neighborhoods are lawless, too dangerous for police. Some roads are so bomb-laden that U.S. troops wont use them. Guerrillas attack U.S. troops nearly every time they venture out and hit their bases with gunfire, rockets or mortars when they dont.
Though not powerful enough to overrun U.S. positions, insurgents here in the heart of the Sunni Muslim triangle have fought undermanned U.S. and Iraqi forces to a virtual stalemate.

Its out of control, says Army Sgt. 1st Class Britt Ruble, behind the sandbags of an observation post in the capital of Anbar province. We dont have control of this ... we just dont have enough boots on the ground.

Reining in Ramadi, through arms or persuasion, could be the toughest challenge for Prime Minister Nouri al-Malikis new government. Al-Maliki has promised to use maximum force when needed. But three years of U.S. military presence, with nearly constant patrols and sweeps, hasnt done it.

Deadly to and fro
Today Ramadi, a city of 400,000 along the main highway running to Jordan and Syria, 70 miles west of Baghdad, has battles fought in endless circles. Small teams of insurgents open fire and coalition troops respond with heavy blows, often airstrikes or rocket fire thats turned city blocks into rubble.

Were holding it down to a manageable level until Iraqis forces can take over the fight, Marine Capt. Carlos Barela said of the daily violence battering the city.

How long before that happens is anybodys guess.

U.S. and Iraqi commanders say militants fled to Ramadi from Fallujah during a devastating U.S.-led assault there in 2004. Others have joined from elsewhere in Anbar, blending into a civilian population either sympathetic to their cause or too afraid to turn against them.

Theyve destroyed police stations and left the force in shambles. The criminal court system doesnt function because judges are afraid to work; tribal sheiks have fled or been assassinated.
While al-Maliki has vowed to crush the insurgency, a major military operation to clear Ramadi risks destroying any hope of reaching a political settlement with disaffected Sunnis.

U.S. commanders also say a Fallujah-style operation is not in the cards, at least not yet, and might not have the desired effect. That would set us back two years, said Lt. Col. Stephen Neary, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment.

For troops, status quo unacceptable
However, the status quo with its bloodletting doesnt sit well with the troops.

We just go out, lose people and come back, said Iraqi Col. Ali Hassan, whose men fight alongside the Americans. The insurgents are moving freely everywhere. We need a big operation. We need control.

Some Americans also say ground needs to be taken and held. Most U.S. missions typically consist of going out, coming under fire and returning to base leaving behind a no-mans-land held by neither side that insurgents in black ski masks always pour back into.

This just we ride out, hold it for an hour, get hit, ride back in and now we dont hold it anymore, whats the point? said Ruble of the Armys 1st Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment. I believe in the cause and I believe in doing good, but when were going out, getting hurt and ... not accomplishing anything, why are we going out there? If youre saying killing one insurgent is worth one of my guys getting hurt ... youre crazy. Thats like killing one guy in the Chinese army. What have you done? not a thing.

The sheer scale of violence in Ramadi is astounding.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-13 17:07|| 2006-06-13 17:07|| Front Page Top

#11 I dont get the impression there ARE any civilian govt officials left in Ramadi, or any govt-friendly shieks, etc. Every insurgent from anywhere in Anbar has gathered there. Its different from the way Fallujah was ONLY in that USMC and SOME Iraqi units are still able to operate in SOME parts of the city - which was not the case in Fallujah. There simply arent any targets left for the insurgents in Ramadi, aside from the USMC and Iraqi force units. Whom they are already attacking WHEN they can do so to their advantage. Yeah, they could increase their op tempo against coalition forces, but that probably only hurts the insurgents.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-13 17:11|| 2006-06-13 17:11|| Front Page Top

#12 sounds like a Quagmire LH

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-06-13 17:19|| 2006-06-13 17:19|| Front Page Top

#13 youre missing the point Frank.

The big problem in Iraq isnt Ramadi. Its Baghdad, where over a fifth of the population lives. several times bigger than all Anbar province combined. The op, scheduled to begin tomorrow morning Iraq time, is to clean out Baghdad. MHW cautioned that the insurgents could strike in Ramadi, while we are focused on Baghdad. My response is there isnt much they can do in Ramadi they havent already done - ergo, we neednt worry too much about Ramadi, but can look forward to the cleaning up of Baghdad. My line of posts is OPTIMISTIC about the new operation, not pessimistic.

Am i being too nuanced again?

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-13 17:23|| 2006-06-13 17:23|| Front Page Top

#14 for my limited capacity? Obviously

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-06-13 17:26|| 2006-06-13 17:26|| Front Page Top

#15 ---Al-Maliki has promised to use maximum force when needed. But three years of U.S. military presence, with nearly constant patrols and sweeps, hasnt done it.---

That's because maximum force hasn't been used...yet.

Posted by anonymous2u 2006-06-13 18:44|| 2006-06-13 18:44|| Front Page Top

#16 This is a big deal. What it says is that Coaltion and Iraqi forces will now take and sustain Baghdad.

Because of the size of Baghdad, it represents the best place for thugs to hide in plain site. Taking and holding Baghdad means Sadr City and the expansion of safety for Iraqis beyond the Green Zone, which is both a huge psychological win for Iraqis and commerce to a major geographic win.

It's not as if Baghdad is the only fight underway. Iraqi solders with Coaltion support fortifies the borders and runs security for Iraqi infrastucture.

What's most pleasing about this operation is that it means Iraqi military is adequately capable and competent to take and hold the major urban real estate.

Posted by Captain America 2006-06-13 19:15|| 2006-06-13 19:15|| Front Page Top

#17 I don't know LH, there is a whole lot more they could do Ramadi wise. I do understand what you are saying, but once the political pain is accepted we could even fire bomb the city.

Not saying we should, but military wise, there is a lot more they could do, with one of most extreme being to lay waste to everything.

Posted by bombay">bombay 2006-06-13 20:25|| 2006-06-13 20:25|| Front Page Top

23:55 WTF!
23:49 WTF!
23:45 WTF!
23:32 DMFD
23:31 WTF!
23:24 Shieldwolf
23:13 Tibor
23:04 Frank G
23:02 Eric Jablow
23:02 SteveS
22:54 Eric Jablow
22:52 muck4doo
22:48 muck4doo
22:47 muck4doo
22:45 muck4doo
22:44 muck4doo
22:44 Frank G
22:43 Captain America
22:43 muck4doo
22:42 muck4doo
22:38 flyover
22:38 Frank G
22:35 Redneck Jim
22:35 Barbara Skolaut