Author Topic: How safe is Anbar?  (Read 1047 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
How safe is Anbar?
« on: September 04, 2007, 09:38:56 AM »
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
On How al-Anbar isn't that Safe
and on How its "Calm" is Artificially Produced

Bush made a surprise visit to Al-Anbar Province on Monday, as part of his propaganda drive to get Americans to think we should stay in Iraq because "progress" is being made.

The debate over al-Anbar province is driven by the Bushies' desire to find any 'good news' to grasp at. Indeed, from 2003 forward, their criterion for objective reporting on Iraq was that it gave the 'good news.' When there obviously wasn't any good news, they started ignoring Iraq, as at Fox [Republican TV] Cable News.

Now the 'good news' appears (I swear to God) to be that you can "walk" in Iraq. That's the good news. The 8 billion people in the world walk every day, in most of the world's locales. Now it is an achievement to walk. That's good news of the highest order. Only, if you are American in Fallujah you might need a company of Marines with you so that you can . . . walk. (See below).

Is al-Anbar Province really paradise, as Bush suggested?

Al-Anbar residents killed 20 US troops in July. The total US fatalities in July were 79 according to icasualties.org, and some of those were presumably from accidents, etc. So al-Anbar, despite being reduced to the stone age, managed to kill a fourth or more of all US troops killed in combat in July. Al-Anbar is roughly 1/24 of Iraq by population. So it killed six times more US troops than we would have expected based on its proportion of the Iraqi population.

That's what the Bushies are celebrating, that the deadly al-Anbar has been wrestled down to only killing a fourth of the US troops killed in a month. It used to be more.

In mid-July, There were about 100 violent attacks in a single week in al-Anbar. That's a bright spot. That's progress. Since the year before, there were 400 violent attacks in that same period.

Well, yes, that's a relative improvement. But a hundred violent attacks in a week? That's being touted as good news to be ecstatic over? There were probably on the order of 1100 attacks that week in all of Iraq. So al-Anbar generated nearly one-tenth of all attacks. But it is only 1/24 of Iraq by population, so it is more than twice as dangerous with regard to the number of attacks than you would expect from its small population.

Fallujah, of course, was a trouble spot for the US military. I entertain dark suspicions that Bush had it destroyed for reasons of revenge. The November 2004 US assault damaged 2/3s of the buildings. Tens of thousands of former residents are still refugees.

One of the ways "calm" has been produced in the city is to simply forbid vehicular traffic. Since May, if you wanted to get somewhere in Fallujah, you have had to walk. So when the National Review tells us things are suddenly miraculously "calm" in al-Anbar, this is being produced artificially. Things would be calm in most hot spots if you could ban all forms of locomotion save walking.

The problem with producing calm by banning traffic is that it leaves you with a Somalia level of economic activity. IPS notes,


    ' Residents say unemployment is above 80 percent. Most of the rest who have some work are government employees. The huge industrial area has been closed by U.S. and Iraqi Army units '



80 percent unemployment? Now that is calm.

"Calm" has also been produced by death squad activity. IPS notes,


    ' Hundreds of suspected resistance fighters are now held at the Fallujah police station. Many have been killed on the streets; the police speak of finding "unidentified bodies". Several of those found dead had been arrested earlier, eyewitnesses and families of several of the men killed have said.'



So obviously if you round up a lot of young men and hold them without charge, and if you wipe out some others, "calm" is produced.

Another way of producing "calm" is to silence local journalists. Some have been arbitrarily arrested and then let go, with instructions to report the news as the Iraqi police tell them to. So we don't really know much about what is actually happening in Fallujah.

IPS quotes a local Sunni cleric:


    ' "To say Fallujah is quiet is true, and you can see it in the city streets," said Shiek Salim from the Fallujah Scholars' Council. "The city is practically dead, and the dead are quiet.'



So, all these measures-- banning traffic, rounding up young men, silencing the journalists, etc.-- have at least ended the attacks on US troops, right? Wrong.

It was only last week; I mean, August 28 was not that long ago, but this one is already forgotten:


    "BAGHDAD -- A suicide bomber detonated a vest packed with explosives in a Sunni Arab mosque in Fallujah yesterday, killing 10 worshipers, including the imam, and shattering what had been a period of relative calm for a region once the most volatile hotbed of Iraq's insurgency."



Now, if ten worshippers were killed in a church just last week in a small US city of 200,000, would Congressmen be flocking there to proclaim how wonderful the security situation was?

Just a month before, a bomber killed two policemen in Fallujah and wounded 11 others.

On July 23, a female suicide bomber killed 7 policemen at a checkpoint in downtown Ramadi.

On July 8, a truck bomb killed 23 persons at a police recruiting center in Haswa, al-Anbar province.

On Monday there was this in Ramadi:


    ' A suicide car bomb attacked an Iraqi security checkpoint on highway near the city of Ramadi in the western province of Anbar on Monday, killing two security members and wounding three others, a provincial police source said. '



Think Progress noticed this exchange between CNN's Wolf Blitzer and starry-eyed returnee from Fallujah, Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA).


    "BOUSTANY: We?re clearly seeing some major improvements. Clearly in the Anbar Province, we?ve seen significant improvement. We were able to walk the streets of Fallujah. Sectarian deaths are down.

    [?]

    BLITZER: And Congressman Boustany, you say that the number of casualties is going down. But we took a closer look ? and The Los Angeles Times did as well ? citing Iraqi Health Ministry numbers. In June, it was 1,227 civilian deaths in Iraq. In July, it went up to 1,753 civilian deaths in Iraq. And in August, the month that just ended, 1,773 civilian deaths in Iraq. Those numbers are going in the wrong direction.

    BOUSTANY: Well, I think what I mentioned earlier, Wolf, was the number of attacks. And, clearly, we have to look at all the metrics very carefully.

    BLITZER: But statistics ? you can play a lot of room with statistics. In terms of dead people, civilians, Iraqi dead people, those numbers are high and they?re getting worse, despite the increased military troop levels of the United States, the so-called surge having been in effect over the past couple of months.

    BOUSTANY: Well, Wolf, I want to point out that just two or three months ago, I would have never thought that four members of Congress would be able to walk through the streets of Fallujah. That?s a major?

    BLITZER: But you had a lot of security with you. You had a lot of U.S. military protection.

    BOUSTANY: We had a platoon of Marines.

    BLITZER: Yes, well, a platoon of Marines is a lot of Marines to walk through Fallujah. . .



Good for Wolf!

As for Bush,he knows that good news would be the Sunni Arabs in al-Anbar gladly signing on to the al-Maliki government.
http://www.juancole.com/
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: How safe is Anbar?
« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2007, 09:43:50 AM »
Quote
BLITZER: But you had a lot of security with you. You had a lot of U.S. military protection.

    BOUSTANY: We had a platoon of Marines.

    BLITZER: Yes, well, a platoon of Marines is a lot of Marines to walk through Fallujah. . .

And a platoon would make a perfect target to attack, especially with a high value target in their midst.

But that didn't happen did it?


Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How safe is Anbar?
« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2007, 10:04:58 AM »
No, and that must be proof that Anbar is safe as houses.
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

gipper

  • Guest
Re: How safe is Anbar?
« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2007, 10:06:37 AM »
The larger point of Lanya's borrowed article is the important one. How much is the calm a temporary, surface phenomenon only, depending most acutely for permanency on a political rapprochement that just ain't coming, or how much is the security just what Bush predicted: the enemy taking to the mattresses until someone deems the area safe enough to leave? As to the latter, I note dejectedly that even if sustaining the US military effort were a good idea, it seems impossible from so many different perspectives. My great fear is that a rah-rah, win, win, win mentality may blind us to long-range strategic interests, the kind a statesman like Churchill concerned himself with, or any world leader worth the name.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2007, 10:14:13 AM by gipper »

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: How safe is Anbar?
« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2007, 10:21:20 AM »
Quote
No, and that must be proof that Anbar is safe as houses.

No but it either goes to show the incompetence of the insurgents or the value of the surge.

Face it. If i were an insurgent and i wanted to make a name for myself and i saw a platoon of marines with a high profile target, i would mount an attack and at worst kill the congressman or at best kidnap him. And then let the media storm drive the retreat of US forces.

Sure payback is a given, civilians would die, but i'm killing them anyway so what the hell.


And Domer this isn't about Bush. Hasn't been for about a year.

Ball is in the candidates court.

They are driving the debate.




Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How safe is Anbar?
« Reply #5 on: September 04, 2007, 11:23:16 AM »
<<And a platoon would make a perfect target to attack, especially with a high value target in their midst.

<<But that didn't happen did it?>>

Don't mean jack-shit.  Unless you're the Resistance commander on the ground, you've got no idea at all what's involved in attacking the platoon. 

All due respect to Boustany, I take his "platoon of Marines" with a large grain of salt.  There was undoubtedly more than a platoon of Marines although the platoon might have been all that was visible.   A vet once told me about an Eisenhower visit in Normandy, the General in an open jeep with heavily-armed bodyguards and some escort vehicles in front and behind.  What didn't show in the pictures were the tanks and troops lining the road in droves but behind the bushes, trees and hedges.

I think what probably happened was that the secret of the visit was well-kept, and there wasn't enough time to assemble a sufficient Resistance force to mount an attack.  BFD.  For the general purposes of the war, they'll find the time they need.  Which is not the same as saying they'll hit every target.  Some opportunities you just gotta pass up.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: How safe is Anbar?
« Reply #6 on: September 04, 2007, 01:13:20 PM »
Quote
I think what probably happened was that the secret of the visit was well-kept, and there wasn't enough time to assemble a sufficient Resistance force to mount an attack.  BFD.  For the general purposes of the war, they'll find the time they need.  Which is not the same as saying they'll hit every target.  Some opportunities you just gotta pass up.

So an increased presence  does work. Thanks for making my point.

gipper

  • Guest
Re: How safe is Anbar?
« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2007, 01:21:14 PM »
The debate does not turn on these picayune details.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How safe is Anbar?
« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2007, 01:26:24 PM »
<<So an increased presence  does work. Thanks for making my point.>>

Your reasoning's a little deficient.  To make your point, you'd need to prove that BEFORE the increased presence, the Resistance WOULD have been capable of assembling the necessary forces within the time provided.

Your reasoning also seems to assume (wrongly) that failure to attack a high-value target has only one possible explanation.


BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: How safe is Anbar?
« Reply #9 on: September 04, 2007, 01:30:48 PM »
Prior to the surge they attacked and even kidnapped soldiers. British and American. Not so now.

Seems the are having more problems hiding in plain sight.

Perhaps the cooperation of more locals tells the tale.