Posted on 09/11/2006 7:08:35 AM PDT by taylorstreet
The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report concluding that the prospects for securing that country's western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there, said several military officers and intelligence officials familiar with its contents.
The officials described Col. Pete Devlin's classified assessment of the dire state of Anbar as the first time that a senior U.S. military officer has filed so negative a report from Iraq.
One Army officer summarized it as arguing that in Anbar province, "We haven't been defeated militarily but we have been defeated politically -- and that's where wars are won and lost."
The "very pessimistic" statement, as one Marine officer called it, was dated Aug. 16 and sent to Washington shortly after that, and has been discussed across the Pentagon and elsewhere in national security circles. "I don't know if it is a shock wave, but it's made people uncomfortable," said a Defense Department official who has read the report. Like others interviewed about the report, he spoke on the condition that he not be identified by name because of the document's sensitivity.
Devlin reports that there are no functioning Iraqi government institutions in Anbar, leaving a vacuum that has been filled by the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has become the province's most significant political force, said the Army officer, who has read the report. Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair; a third said it concludes that the United States has lost in Anbar...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
who to believe, anonymous sources in the Compost, or Vice President Cheney himself yesterday?
Hmmmm. As they have demonstrated they can do as the new caretakers of Abu Ghraib.
Thanks so much for this information. It is really helpful. It reminds me of the proverb: "The first to present his case seems right, until another comes forward to question him."
Fiasco" by Thomas E. Ricks
Bio: Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post Pentagon correspondent Thomas E. Ricks lectures widely to the military and is a member of Harvard University?s Senior Advisory Council on the Project on U.S. Civil-Military Relations. He is the author of the bestselling book Making the Corps. He lives outside Washington, D.C., with his wife and children.
Bingo.
I think the Kurds are the wild card in all of this. Remember a large section of northern Iran as well as southern Turkey are Kurdish homelamds.
Now, how can we use this information to our advantage?
Agree on the assessment. Let them fight and die for their country in the way they can most effectively be. Our forces have been so hampered by political correctness and generals afraid to fight wars the way they should be fought, brutal and without any mercy. The will of these insurgents and others need to be absolutely destroyed.
Based on Walter Cronkite's lead, CBS news and other news organizations reported that American estimates of enemy strength, and of their casualties were falsified. This really exploded after the Tet offensive, a simultaneous series of all-out attacks in every province of South Viet Nam right at the beginning of the Vietnamese holiday Tet. The effect of the attacks was devastating... to the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army, ultimately.
But the unexpected shock and the initial setbacks that the US brass failed to foresee, gave credibility to any and all negative reports from the leftist press. Walter Cronkite himself reported that the American Embassy in Saigon had been overrun by Viet Cong commandos, and this news had a devastating effect on troop and public morale. It wasn't true.
That didn't stop the leftist media. Thereafter, they could report anything they liked in a negative light, and they were believed. We thought we were losing the war! We weren't. The reporter that wrote this story is working in the old Cronkite tradition of using out of context bad news to paint an overall bad picture. Common as dirt.
Bingo.
Here's a response from Major Gen. Zilmer:
FALLUJAH, Iraq – Recent media reports fail to accurately capture the entirety and complexity of the current situation in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq. The classified assessment, which has been referred to in these reports, was intended to focus on the causes of the insurgency. It was not intended to address the positive effects Coalition and Iraqi forces have achieved on the security environment over the past years.
That said, there is an active insurgency in Anbar. The enemy we face has no concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people, nor any peaceful vision for their future. We believe the Iraqi people want something more and are willing to fight and die for it.
We are making steady progress in the accomplishment of our primary mission to train and develop the Iraqi Security Forces to defeat the insurgency. This is due in large measure to the successful recruiting and training of thousands of Iraqi Police and improvements in the overall capabilities of the Iraqi Army. This has resulted in the transfer of increasing responsibilities to the ISF for fighting the insurgency. Finally, the progress we have made has been due to the dedicated and heroic actions of both US and Iraqi forces.
Despite these consistent advances in the security environment, we have found making the same progress politically and economically, throughout all of Anbar, to be much more challenging. In areas where the presence of Iraqi Security Forces is combined with an effective local civil government, we have seen progress made. Not just in the area of security, but in economic development and the establishment of social order and public services. These are the conditions which must be set that will result in the support of the local people, and ultimately cause the defeat of this terrorist backed insurgency.
For lasting progress to take place, comparably effective advances must be made in the development of governmental and economic institutions at the local, provincial and national levels. Only then, will the people of Al Anbar be able to realize their goal of long-term security, prosperity and confidence in their government.
Link here: http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5546&Itemid=21
Can someone remind me as to why we so strongly oppose the partition of Iraq?
The Kurds get the north and the oil there, the Shias get the southeast and the oil there. The Sunnis get the west and the sand there. If any group doesn't like their lot, they'd better cooperate and play nice with the occupiers who serve as referees.
Turkey's concerns? Like they've been helpful. Which isn't to say Turkey isn't a friend, but rather that all things considered, I'd rather have Turkey pissed off than lose 500 American troops a year trying to keep Ramadi as part of a larger Iraq.
It seems to me that by playing along with the one Iraq concept, we give one group (the Sunnis) more leverage than they should naturally have. Come on, we have 35% of the population killing us as we try to avert a civil war in which this 35% would get slaughtered. They should be our biggest supporters as we institute the rules that would keep the very embittered majority from slitting their collective throats.
Last thing those guys want is an independent Kurdish state.
Oh sure. We can trust reporting from the comPost.
I'll bet the report says nothing like this.
Oh darn. That leaves only one option...
bombing starts in 5 minutes and continues
until problem solved.
It sounds to me as if this article says the same thing as the first, they've just tried to put a more positive spin on it. The problem in al-Anbar is that the governmental & economic institutions aren't taking hold.
I'm going to comment on some of your post below. I'm not as pessimistic as I sound, so don't take it the wrong way. I just don't think we're going to win until we look at what's going on clearly.
Without disclosing classified details the situation is militarily stable.
That's never really been in question. There's no force in Iraq that can seriously challenge our military power. It's our political power that's in jeopardy.
The people are moving away from the insurgents because they are indiscriminately killing anyone who cooperates with us. They are attacking at a very high rate trying to inflict casualties to influence the November election in the U.S. They want to make decision makers and politicians decide that winning in Iraq is not worth the cost.
I remember hearing this talk for the first time in Mosul, early 2004, almost word for word. It made me feel pretty optimistic at the time. Not so much now. I imagine troops will be hearing it in early 2008, as well.
Ask that question to a candidate an you will know whether or not he has been sociologically defeated. We are sustaining losses but our people in the field have high morale and plenty of will to see the fight through.
There's more than one way to skin a cat, or to advance America's interests. I wouldn't trust the Democrats to do it, any more than I'd ask them to hold my wallet for safe keeping. Amongst ourselves, though, we should be able to stay open minded and think our way out of this problem.
Colonel Devlin's point is that we will not win militarily in Al Anbar.
I'm glad that idea is sinking in. I know a lot of commanders say 'counterinsurgency', but in their hearts they still mean 'find, fix and finish'. I don't really think that will change, so long as Big Army is running the show. Special Forces are better suited to this type of work.
We detain them in the hundreds and put them away when we can prove a case against them.
Our 'detain to imprison' ratio isn't very good overall, as we inadvertently scoop up a lot of innocent people. (Although some of the detainee reports are hilarious, especially when they're caught lying). Even Task Force, who almost always gets their man, often bags some random people on accident. That makes for a lot of bad blood.
Also, a lot of really bad guys walk, for a number of reasons. It's a terrible feeling, knowing that some of them we've caught are breathing free air again.
We'd be better off taking fewer prisoners, in both senses of the phrase. Much better off.
To win we have to do so politically and we are doing that too. It is a slow process but the Sunnis are seeing that we are treating them better than the insurgents and we are building Iraqi security forces who will protect and defend the people.
This is where our victory will come from. I personally think we'd be smarter to do it with a smaller conventional force, and a large SOF counterinsurgency program, but anything that turns the political situation around will pay off for us way more than raids and roadblocks.
We are waging a successful Information Operations campaign and exploiting the vulnerability of the insurgents to the truth about what we offer versus what they offer.
We honestly need to get a lot better at this to. Terrorist IO strategies and tactics run circles around ours. AQI media cells should work for Hollywood after this is all over. (Assuming they're not already).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.