What is it like in Iraq?

[kandrathe]

Esquire: Hired Guns by Tucker Carlson

The gist of the article is that the US military is very focused on military objectives, with turnover of many of the transitional tasks to contract firms (e.g. training the Iraqi police on non-torture interrogation techiniques). I guess once an acceptable provisional government is established and the new nation is able to defend itself, we can get the heck out of there. Egads, though, I found the end of that article to be chilling.

Edit: Now that I've had some time to let the article sink in, I'm finding myself a little appalled by the obviously "wild, wild, west" environment in Baghdad.

But the CID has no authority over civilians off base. "I don't even know that if you engage someone there's even an investigative authority to follow up," Kelly said. "With no parameters, how do I know if I've done something wrong? It's like the Wild West, but nobody's the sheriff."

And, here is another observation from the war hardended merc Bill,

Bill had spent months in Somalia around the time of the Black Hawk disaster in 1993, commanding a surveillance team in downtown Mogadishu. Feuding warlords, khat-addled lunatics driving pickups with .50-caliber machine guns mounted on the back—it sounded like a hairy place. Bill said Baghdad was more dangerous.

[Occhidiangela]

In Somalia, it was about food and skimming international aid for personal enrichment.

In Iraq, it's about more than that, to include oil and a significant strategic bit of geography in the Middle East.

So, no surprise that outside players are putting more into the mix. Except Kofi, who won't go back into Iraq until someone cleans up the mess. Of course, once the mess is cleaned up, what the hell does anyone nead his bureaucrats for?? He's not impressing me, and I am a person who generally supports the UN, for all its limitations and warts.

Tough job, but if he understood leadership . . .

[kandrathe]

I find it ironic that the US and Europe donate the food & aid, only to have it stolen by factions who sell it and use the money to make war on the same people who supplied the aid.

As for Kofi Annan and leadership? I think this press conference pretty much says it all.
12/18/2003 PRESS CONFERENCE BY SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN

Tucker's article in my first post above got me thinking about: "What is the US military doing their now, just hanging around on base?" So I caught up on some of Centcom's latest breifing and I see there are some interesting developments in getting to the leadership of Ansur al Islam, and perhaps al Queda.

2/25/2004 Coalition Provisional Authority Briefing
2/24/2004 Coalition Provisional Authority Briefing from Iraq

Notably:

Kimmitt:  Yeah.  Okay.  Right.  On the evening of 19 February, coalition forces received small-arms fire from a house in the Al-Jazeera area of Habbaniya, approximately 90 kilometers west of Baghdad.  Coalition forces returned fire, resulting in one enemy killed in action.  Inside the house, the unit discovered a large quantity of bomb-making materials, explosives and electronic components, pro-Saddam literature, pictures of Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi. The enemy killed has been identified as Abu Muhammed Hamza, an explosives expert and believed to be one of Zarqawi's lieutenants.

While assessed as a blow to the Zarqawi network, he and his group remain a threat to the security and stability of Iraq.  And the coalition renews its offer for a $10 million reward for information leading to Zarqawi's apprehension.

Senor:  I would just add that the information that the general referred to in the overall picture we are continuing to piece together about Mr. Zarqawi's network and his activities inside Iraq -- obviously this is consistent with what we have been seeing and certainly what we have been reading about in the Zarqawi letter in which he talks about the 25 operations -- specifically bombings, really -- that he's been involved in here in Iraq -- he has orchestrated.

We obviously have reason to believe that this individual that was killed two evenings ago was a part of that overall network, a part of that overall effort.  And we view this as a significant step forward. Still much work to do; obviously we are still in hot pursuit of Mr. Zarqawi.  But this does fit with the overall puzzle that we've been piecing together on the activities of the Zarqawi network, what we believe to be the Zarqawi network, inside Iraq.

I remember sceptics to the idea of terrorist organizations operaring in Iraq prior to the war.
2/5/2003 BBC: Zarqawi and the 'al-Qaeda link'

But, I'm also sure that the crappy security situation in Iraq is attracting terrorists like flies from the entire islamic world.

[Occhidiangela]

I do not find reading the entire text of UN mushmouth speak to be worth my time, but thanks for the link anyway. :) Same is true for plenty of US Politikspeak. It aint what you say, it is what you do.

But, I'm also sure that the crappy security situation in Iraq is attracting terrorists like flies from the entire islamic world.

What I can't determine is whether or not "smoking out terrorists" was deliberate or not. The evidence I see that tells me it was not is the "we are outta there real soon" line.

I have had a nagging suspicion for over a year that part of going to Iraq was to give terrorists a place to come out of the woodwork. A risky strategy, for sure, and given that terrorism uses the international media as a weapon as much as it uses bombs and guns, not one I would have chosen. However, beating terrorists in the media war is an aim worth pursuing, even though it is an incredibly hard fight to win in a global media setting.

Of course, no one asked me. ;)

[kandrathe]

I do not find reading the entire text of UN mushmouth speak to be worth my time, but thanks for the link anyway.

Well, the gist of it to me was that the usually sympathetic liberal press handed him his rear end. One question was almost blatantly asking "Since the UN is so ineffective under your leadership, will you resign?"

What I can't determine is whether or not "smoking out terrorists" was deliberate or not.

I wondered that myself. I wouldn't doubt it was in the list of major objectives. What more perfect place than Iraq which borders on or near the places that are rife with Wahabi-ism. Even before the Ba'athist regime fell the borders were open except at designated check points. I think there will be US military there until the new Iraqi government asks us to leave. Then we will move the anti-terrorism fighting elsewhere in the region.

However, beating terrorists in the media war is an aim worth pursuing, even though it is an incredibly hard fight to win in a global media setting.

Our own media is out of control, obtuse, and myopic -- I think the US has little chance to spin anything positive in the global media.

Over 300 young Iraqi men applying for jobs at police stations have been killed by their fellow Arab terrorist extremist brothers, all in the name of striking at anyone who cooperates with the US in bringing order to Iraq. There are still thousands who line up outside police stations all over Iraq with the hope of getting a good job and helping to rebuild their society. The Iraqi's seem to pretty clearly understand who are their friends and enemies. What does our media focus on? The number of Americans killed and then whining like kids in the back seat "Are we there yet?".

[Occhidiangela]

I could agree more on this score

That having been said, I also believe that the alternative that has been put forth –- the process of selection and caucusing –- has to be inclusive and transparent and be seen as fair by Iraqis -– and for the Iraqis to feel it is a process they have ownership over.  I think if that is done, the outcome will be accepted and it will be credible within Iraq, in the region and beyond.  So, I consider it a viable alternative, but it has to be handled carefully.

Question:  Will it be done by 1 July?

The Secretary-General:  You mean the selection process?  I think that could be done:  the selections.  Actual full-fledged elections are not possible to be done by June.  But the other process, properly handled, is possible.

The setting of that extremely optimistic deadline has defined US/UN/Electins Council action via failure criterion. Setting the deadline was a trap, driven perhaps by internal US political issues, perhaps driven by things off stage between various parties discussing things behind closed doors. Don't know. If the former is the case, it is a strategic mistake, as it hands, giftwrapped, victory criterion to the anarchists in Iraq. That's how I see it.

Question:  Critics of the United Nations are quick to cite bodies like the Commission on Human Rights and the fact that the past year it was chaired by Libya and it did not have a stellar record.  Some human rights activists have called for some sort of criteria for countries to join the Commission on Human Rights.  How do you feel about that type of proposal?

Worthy qyestion, of course, but Kofi is, at best, a facilitator, which is a hard job.

The questions he got asked, Kashmir and Liberia aside, were softballs compared to what American Presidents and British PM's tend to get asked, in my view.

[whereagles]

Situation in Iraq is bad, and will very likely stay bad when (and if) the US leaves the country. But anyway.. what's a few thousand civilians' lives worth in comparision with millions of barrels of cheap oil?