Mr, Iraq Could use a Man like Saddam Hussein Again

A long report on how Iran has infiltrated every aspect of life in Iraq.

It's tempting to blame this on Obama, so we will. After all, he's the one that cut and run from Iraq. Actually Barry couldn't be bothered with the details and left managing the withdrawal to Vice President Biden. By the way, congrats on becoming a grandpa again Joe!

But let's be honest. Would it have made a difference if we'd maintained a corps HQ in Baghdad, a Marine MEU in Anbar and an Army brigade along the rat lines leading to Iran? Could engineers and civil affair teams have countered Iranian influence?

Probably not.

Iraq is majority Shia and a lot smaller than Iran. Gravity dictates the nation will fall into the Iranian sphere. Unless it's run by a secular Sunni strongman.

This blog is close to declaring the Iraq campaign a mistake.

[Are you now? Well that's bloody gracious of you, isn't it?-Ed]

The Middle East: What we Believed on 9-12

Reader(s) will recall that William Stroock dot blogspot dot com supports Trump's withdrawal from Syria and hopes he pulls troops out of Afghanistan, especially Afghanistan.

What the hell does victory in Afghanistan look like?

We're trying to recall our mindset in the first few years after 9/11.

The attacks brushed up against the margins of our life. The phones were jammed. We spent much of the morning tracking down friends and relatives both in the NY region and back in DC, from where we had just moved that July.  Our sister was on the subway when the planes hit. Our grandfather watched the second plane go in. From the Tappan Zee Bridge we saw the smoke cloud obscuring the mighty Hudson River.  Four men in our town (Peapack, NJ) were killed.

We were filled with righteous anger. We listened to Bruce Springsteen's The Rising. We really dug Toby Keith.

Till that point our foreign policy thinking was usually, 'Rubble does not make trouble'.

We stand by that slogan.

Like W we figured, 'You're with us, or you're with the terrorists'. We felt that the Middle East was a sclerotic hell hole. Nations were at best one party socialist states run by dictators (Egypt, Syria, Iraq) or theocracies run by religious nutters (Saudi Arabia, Iran).

We stand by that analysis.

The Middle East was very stable, said the stability fetishists; the likes of Madeline Albright, Brent Scowcroft, Mika Berezniki's father, etc etc. They argued that liberating Iraq would destabilize the Middle East.

To which we said, 'Great! Let's destabilize the Middle East!'

We stand by that argument.

In the wake of 9/11 we felt the Middle East must be changed and Iraq was a great place to start. We thought if we could establish a democracy in the heart of the region, those ideas would spread and undermine the surrounding regimes.

To sum up, we thought the liberation of Iraq would begin the transformation of the Middle East.

We don't think that's happened.

We're with him

New Government in Iraq?

New Government in Iraq!

Fellow Neo-Con Eli Lake writes:

The new government in Baghdad has evoked two broad reactions in Washington: hope and dread

My Bloomberg Opinion colleague Meghan O’Sullivan is encouraged by Iraq’s new president and designated prime minister, Barham Salih and Adil Abdul-Mahdi. Both men have longstanding relationships with the U.S. government and have played important roles in building a new Iraq from the ashes of Saddam Hussein’s tyranny.

So, we have a transfer of power in an Arab country, a peaceful transfer of power no less.

Read further in the article and one will learn there have been protests, all be it with some arson, though the arson was directed at the Iranian consulate, so we'll mark that down as a good thing.

It's almost as if Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein running the joint.

Operation Knight's Charge

Yesterday we noted that ten years ago this week began the most important battle of the Surge, President Bush's triarii effort to win the battle for Iraq. Here's what we wrote about the final battle in Strategy & Tactics Magazine late that year:

By the beginning of 2008, President Bush’s ‘surge’ in Iraq was yielding tangible results. Thanks largely to the influx of American troops; Al Qaida was on the run in Diyala, Salahadin, and Babil provinces north of Baghdad. The Sunni population, tired of being the target of Al Qaida attacks, fielded thousands of militia who fought and expelled the terrorists from the western province of Anbar. During the course of the year, the Iraqi Army expanded from 10 to 13 divisions and engaged Al Qaida and other insurgent groups in countless battles. American and Iraqi troops were systematically clearing Baghdad, bringing a sharp reduction in terrorist violence there.

The biggest problem yet remaining was the Shia Sadarist Bloc and its militia, the Jaish al Mahdi (JAM) or Mahdi Army, led by Moqtada al Sadr. The anti-American cleric, who enjoyed massive military and financial support from Iran, was part of the Iraqi ruling coalition, counting 30 members in the 275 seat parliament. Sadr’s militia controlled the Shia slum of Sadr City in northern Baghdad and maintained a strong presence in every southern town, most notably at the port of Basra, abandoned by the British in the summer of 2007. As many as 17,000 Mahdi fighters roamed the streets and battled other Shia factions for control of the city. Iraqi forces there, the 1 Brigade, 10 Division, were not strong enough to confront the Mahdi and unwilling to do so anyway as they had strong ties with the Shia militia.

This situation was deemed unacceptable by Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki who saw Sadr’s intransigence as a direct threat to the rule of law and a roadblock to political reconciliation with Sunni and Kurdish factions. In December 2007, the prime minister decided to act. 1/10 brigade was relieved of duty and replaced by 14 Division (two brigades taken from other formations joined in February by the brand new 52 Brigade) and 3 Tank Brigade, 9 Division. Thousands of police and a battalion of the Iraqi Special Operations Forces were also dispatched to Basra.

With his troops assembled, at the end of March, Prime Minister Maliki decided the time was right to confront al-Sadr. He travelled to Basra to personally oversee operations and informed General David Petraeus of the plan, who it should be noted, advised against the attack. Dubbed Operation Sawlat al-Fursan - Knight’s Charge, the attack began as an exclusively Iraqi affair with almost no coalition support. On 25 March, the 14th Iraqi Army Division moved into Basra’s northern and eastern districts. There was heavy fighting in Basra’s northern neighborhoods and along route 8 near the Basra Gate in the northwest. At the same time 3/9 Tank Brigade advanced from the south along route 8. 3/9’s advance was halted here by Improved Explosive Devices and Mahdi fighters armed with RPG and mortars. One eyewitness told Voices of Iraq, ‘Gunman forced tanks and Hummer vehicles to withdraw from the main street, and they [destroyed] some of them, setting them on fire.’ When IA forces pressed deeper into the city against the Sadr strongholds of Timmiyah and Jimhariya in the city center, they met stiff resistance from Mahdi militia. Rather than advanced into the disputed areas, IA forces cordoned them off.

The Iraqis were clearly surprised by the staunch resistance offered by the JAM. Many soldiers and officers simply refused to fight and some even surrendered to the Mahdi Army. This was especially true of the Iraqi police and the untested 52 Brigade, which lost more than 900 men to desertion. A stalemate ensued, with the international media depicting Knight’s Charge as an unfolding disaster for the Maliki government.

The fighting in Basra triggered an uprising of the Mahdi Army throughout southern Iraq. Mahdi fighters took to the streets in the cities of Amarah, Diwaniyah, Hillah, Karbala, Kut, Najaf, and Nassiriyah. Though initially caught off guard, IA forces in these towns performed admirably and a general counterattack began mid week. In Karbala, units of the formerly unreliable 10 Division surrounded known Mahdi safe houses and forced the surrender of 50 gunmen, including their commander. A further 12 were killed in firefights throughout the city. Nassiriyah saw heavy fighting involving two of 10 Division’s Special Troops Battalions which killed 85 Mahdi Fighters, wounded 200, and captured 100 more in several running gun battles. Government forces lost 7 dead and 44 wounded. In Hillah, Mahdi forces attacked an Iraqi Special Weapons and Tactics Unit holding a key intersection, the ensuing battle killed 14 fighters and wounded another 20 in exchange for nine SWAT members. Further patrols led to more gun battles and the capture of 85 Mahdi fighters.

There was also heavy fighting in Baghdad, where the JAM hit the Green Zone with mortar and rocket fire, doing little physical damage but winning a significant propaganda victory as the attacks were widely reported in the press. American and Iraqi forces spent several days tracking down Mahdi mortar and rocket teams, resulting in dozens of sharp fire fights, nine alone on 26 March:

12:00, eastern Baghdad: terrorists attack American checkpoint (3rd BCT, 4th Infantry Division).

17:00, southern Baghdad: Iraqi National Police (5th Brigade, 2nd NDP Division) kill terrorist firing on guard tower.

19:45, north of Baghdad: air strike on terrorist concentration

20:00, southern Baghdad: American patrol (4th BCT, 1st Infantry Division) engaged by terrorist cell.

22:30, eastern Baghdad: American patrol (1st Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment) comes under and returns fire. Unit later engaged by second terrorist cell in northeastern Baghdad. Air strike called in.

23:00, eastern Baghdad: air strike on terrorist concentration. At same time, patrol comes under fire and calls in air strike against terrorist cell.

23:00 (approx.) eastern Baghdad: Troops from 2nd BCT 101st Airborne Division engage terrorist cell and soon after engage in second firefight.

The next day an undeterred Mahdi Army engaged American and Iraqi forces in more than a dozen firefights throughout Baghdad, losing 42 killed. At least nine more gun battles were fought on the morning of 28 March, killing 39 Mahdi fighters. Another 20 were killed in seven skirmishes on the 29th. In seven actions fought on 30 March, 48 Mahdi Fighters were killed and 22 captured.

Despite the widespread fighting, Prime Minister Maliki refused to back down and instead committed more troops to the battle. These included the Iraqi Quick Reaction Force (1 IA Division), Hillah SWAT, and the National Police Emergency Response Unit. He also further split Sadarist forces by offering a general amnesty to all those who lay down their arms and emphasized that Knight's Charge was directed at ‘criminal elements’ rather than the Sadrist Bloc at large. Iraqi air force transports flew supplies down to Basra. American advisors were sent to help, while British and American artillery was brought to bear on Mahdi strong points. Thusly reinforced, IA units held their posts and engaged the JAM inflicting devastating losses in Basra amounting to 210 killed, 600 wounded, and 155 prisoners. Iraqi forces suffered 15 dead and 400 wounded, a lopsided total probably due to the availability of body armor in IA units.

A week of fighting resulted in more than 1,000 Mahdi casualties throughout the country. On 29 March, Sadr called for a truce and ordered the Mahdi Army off the streets. Despite Sadr’s call, Prime Minister Maliki vowed to press the attack. Even before Sadr’s call, ISOF and Hillah SWAT were active in Basra. On 29 March, ISOF fought its way inside Hayaniyah, assaulted a targeted safe house, and fought its way back out, killing 22 Mahdi fighters in the action. The next day Hillah SWAT captured 20 arms smugglers, two boats, a stash of weapons and ammunition, and $262,000 in cash. On 31 March, ISOF hit a school the JAM used as a staging area by the Mahdi Army, killing 14. On 3 April, a trio of operations by ISOF and HIllah SWAT killed 7 and netted 16 prisoners.

Following the emerging success in Basra, on 1 April, IA troops entered the ports of Khour al-Zubair and Umm Qasr, encountering no resistance. By then, IA forces controlled most of Basra, except for the Sadr stronghold of Hayaniyah in the center west area of the city. Even there, IA troops made a show of force, driving through Hayaniyah unopposed, save for an IED attack. When Knight’s Charge was renewed on 15 April, the neighborhood was taken by a combined assault by the 1st Iraqi QRF and 14 Division. This led to renewed and lopsided fighting throughout the country, with the JAM losing more than 150 fighters in Baghdad alone. Scores of Mahdi fighters were killed or captured in the following days. With his casualties heavy and his prestige suffering greatly, on 10 May, Sadr agreed to let IA troops into Sadr city and recognized the authority of Maliki’s government.

Operation Knight’s Charge was the first stage in the Iraqi government’s crackdown on the various Shia militias. In the opening phases, Maliki made two nearly catastrophic mistakes: giving General Petraeus late warning of the attack and relying upon the new 14 Division. Also troubling is the apparent need for American and British advisors to accompany IA forces in the field, indicating that the Iraqi officer corps still has some ways to go before it is capable of leading on its own. That being said, the positives of Knight’s Charge outweigh the negatives. While hundreds of troops deserted, the majority fought (as indicated by the 415 casualties suffered in Basra) and inflicted heavy losses on the Mahdi Army. In response to the desertions, several officers were relieved of command and more than 1,300 men were dismissed from duty, a positive development showing that the Iraqi Army can police and improve itself. Throughout the rest of the country, IA troops stood their ground and exacted a heavy price from the Mahdi Army. The 1st Iraqi Quick Response Division lived up to its name. Overall, the Iraqi army performed well, making Knight’s Charge an important victory.

The Surge Ten Years On

Ten years ago the most important battle in the Iraq Surge was raging across the southern part of the country.

It's remarkable to us that no where have we seen anybody mentioning the surge or this battle. Certainly not the media, whose silence on the matter confirms that we won the Battle of Iraq. After all they still wont shut up about the Vietnam War, a conflict they helped lose. 

Anyhoo for those who may not recall, the Surge was President Bush's final effort to force a victory in Iraq. It was the last ditch effort, it came down to the triarii as the Romans would say.

Actually, even before the Surge the tide began to turn the summer of 2006, with the assassination of abu Musab al Zarqawi. There followed the gradual turn of the Sunni tribes in Anbar and the formation of the Anbar Awakening Tribal Council. In a few months the Sunni militias did what the US Army and Marines couldn't do in three years. They flushed out al-Qaida.

From there a half dozen fresh army brigades arrived in Iraq. General David Petraeus deployed these in an around Bagdad to secure the city once and for all. This freed up forces to choke off the rat-lines leading east from Iran and west from Syria, starving further al-Qaida and various Shia terrorist groups.

By the beginning of 2008 one major Shia force remained, this was the Madhi militia of Muqtada al-Sadr. Al-Sadr was Iran's proxy and a direct challenger to the government. That March, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki resolved on his own to confront al Sadr head on. Thus was born Operation Charge of Knights. The final battle for Iraq was a Shia civil war between the Shia government and al Sadr's militia...

Muqtada al Sadr

The Middle East without Iraqi Freedom

Apropos of yesterday's post about Tucker Carlson vs Ralph Peters and Max Boot, let's imagine the United States never liberated Iraq. What would the Middle East look like?

President Bush basically ends the war with victory in Afghanistan.

-In 2017 American forces are still in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban and al-Qaida.
-The 'Arab Spring' still happens. It happened organically within the Arab world and independently of anything the U.S. did.
-Mubarak is still out in Egypt with the same Brotherhood to military rule we have today.
-The Iran situation is unchanged. They are still working on nukes. Iran is still partnered with Hezbollah.
-Re Israel, there is every reason to think the 2002, 2006, 2009, and 2014 wars still happen.
-Because we have the Arab Spring we still have the rise of ISIS.

Really, the great question here is what does Saddam do? We think the most likely Saddam scenario is:

-Sanctions lifted.
-when the Arab Spring comes Iraq is plunged into a massive civil war like Syria but on a larger scale.
-Iran backs the Shia in Iraq.
-The Gulf States back the Sunnis and Saddam.
-The US backs the Kurds.

So we think the Middle East is still in turmoil but many of the details are different.

By the Way, World War 1990: Operation Eastern Storm has Saddam invading Kuwait. One of the things we will deal with in the final novel is the implications of a world where Saddam is the king of the Middle East.

The Neocon vs Himself

Via the incomparable Ace, we have two interviews by the equally incomparable Tucker arguing with Ralph Peters and Max Boot about Russia and Iraq.

We are with Tucker on Russia, we just don't see where Putin is a threat. What do we care if he messes with Ukraine? We're perfectly happy that he blew Chechnya to smithereens and quite pleased with his actions in Syria. Basically the interests of Russia and the U.S. are temporarily aligned.

Now Max Boot wanted to remove the Mullahs in Afghanistan, Saddam in Iraq, Qadafi (pick a spelling, I don't care) in Libya, and Assad in Syria. And here he is trying to recast Putin's Russia as the Evil Empire of 1985. It is as if he never learns.

Look folks, we're an unrepentant Neocon at least on Iraq. We think the liberation is was right and good. We lost 4,500 dead and 40,000 wounded. We spent a trillion dollars and who cares about that. You're average lefty would be thrilled to spend a trillion on condoms, birth control pills and abortions so please. We can debate those points but the fact is we won the war in Iraq.

Personally we never saw the point in getting rid of Qadafi who was a benign and somewhat helpful dictator. We recall the 80's where Reagan kept having to whack him around. Mo hadn't made trouble since. Here's the intro to an article we wrote about him for S&T:

On the night of 14 April, 1986, a flight of A-6 Intruders and A-7 Corsairs from the carriers USS America and USS Coral Sea launched a barrage of 42 HARM and Shrike missiles at radar and Surface to Air Missile sites all along the Libyan Coast. This was just the opening salvo.  Eighteen American F-111 Aardvarks bombed Libyan airfields and installations, including the headquarters of Colonel Muamar Qadhafi, and destroyed more than a dozen aircraft. This was not the first military encounter between Libyan and American forces. On 24 March, the two navies fought a series of skirmishes which cost the Libyans five naval craft.  As far back as 1981, American F-14s had engaged and destroyed a pair of Libyan Mig-25s which had challenged them in the disputed Gulf of Sidra. The American raid of 14 April, called Operation El Dorado Canyon, may not have been the first battle between the two nations, but it was the last.            To Americans of a certain age, Colonel Muamar Qadhafi, president for life of Libya, is a blustering buffoon, a toy dictator mocked on T-shirts calling him ‘Qadhafi Duck’. For much of Africa, however, Qadhafi was a dangerous revolutionary, seeding chaos and terror throughout the continent. Seeking to spread his brand of Pan Arab Marxism, Qadhafi has waged war against the nations of Egypt, Uganda, and Chad. Like his ill-advised skirmish with the United States, Qadhafi’s African adventures ended in failure and humiliation, costing billions in treasure and equipment and thousands of lives.

At least he held no truck with Isis and AQ. When Barry threatened to bomb Syria in 2011 we were dead set against it. Frankly, after Iraq we had had enough.

Libya is Hillary!'s greatest accomplishment.

The Question Peters and Carlson debate on, and we think it was a useful back and forth which both men, managed to keep civil after nearly crossing the line, was the liberation of Iraq good in the long run.

We supported the liberation of Iraq. We saw it as part of the horribly named war on terror. We thought it was a good thing. In the words of M. Wolfowitz we thought the liberation would be a 'cakewalk'. Well that didn't happen. Peters says he would not today support such an action.

Ourselves? Ok, Iraq chose electors to a constitutional convention, had a referendum on that constitution, elected a government, had another election and even a peaceful transfer of power.
Iraq is playing a major role in the defeat of ISIS.

We'll delve into this some more in a later post.

Will's Good Idea for the Week of 6-25-17

The Israeli-Iraq War

Let's say rather than invade Kuwait in 1990 Saddam starts a fight with Israel in an effort to set himself up as the slayer of the Zionist Entity and hero of the Arab World.

This would put Saddam's million man, battle hardened, well armed military, which included something like 700 combat aircraft, against the Israelis. The IDF is of course better armed and trained but smaller with something like 400 combat aircraft. In 1982, while the Iraqis were fighting the Iranians the Israels did battle with the Syrians, drove the Syrian army out of the Bekka Valley and shot down 86 Syrian aircraft.

Now interestingly Iraq did have the ability to project and sustain power outside its borders. For example during the '73 War they sent a division to the Golan.

We feel bad for Jordan. This is where the fight will happen, and King Hussein has no choice but to join Saddam.

We might take this up after Tiger's Tail.

The Neocon Strikes Back

The great lie of the Iraq Campaign was that it stokes terror, created terrorists, made enemies, and radicalized your every day Muslim.

Really, you think Saddam didn't have WMD? Do you also think the Moon Landing was faked?

I suggest that if seeing news one doesn't like is enough to turn your average Muslim into a suicide bomber, then well, that religion has a huge problem.

Of course, your sophisticated and classy continental nations stayed out of Iraq, and the Islamic War in general. France, Belgium, Germany haven't had much to do or say.

In the last 15 years Spain's been attacked, Britain, Australia, Canada, India, the US of course.

For a while smug continentals could claim that since they stayed our of le American's adventure, they weren't antagonizing the Muslim world.

Well, last night Isis completed the trifecta with a terrorist attack in Munich. This follows the horrific blood-letting in France this year and last, Nice, Paris, Charlie Hebdo...I dunno, it all merges together after a while. These nations were broadly unsympathetic to the United States, stayed out of Iraq and barely contributed anything to Afghanistan.

Still their streets are soaked in blood.

Hell of a lot of good it did them, eh?

I'd like to leave France, Belgium the Krauts with this motivational speech: