Agency: Iraq 'out-of-control'

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Agency paints dire picture of 'out-of-control' Iraq</font size></center>

18 January 2006 12:00

An official assessment drawn up by the US foreign aid agency depicts the security situation in Iraq as dire, amounting to a "social breakdown" in which criminals have "almost free rein".

The "conflict assessment" is an attachment to an invitation to contractors to bid on a project rehabilitating Iraqi cities published earlier this month by the US Agency for International Development (USAid).

The picture it paints is not only darker than the optimistic accounts from the White House and the Pentagon, it also gives a more complex profile of the insurgency than the straightforward "rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists" described by President George Bush.

The USAid analysis talks of an "internecine conflict" involving religious, ethnic, criminal and tribal groups. "It is increasingly common for tribesmen to 'turn in' to the authorities enemies as insurgents -- this as a form of tribal revenge," the paper says, casting doubt on the efficacy of counter-insurgent sweeps by coalition and Iraqi forces.

Meanwhile, foreign jihadist groups are growing in strength, the report said.

"External fighters and organisations such as al-Qaeda and the Iraqi offshoot led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are gaining in number and notoriety as significant actors," USAid's assessment said. "Recruitment into the ranks of these organisations takes place throughout the Sunni Muslim world, with most suicide bombers coming from Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region."

The assessment conflicted sharply with recent Pentagon claims that Zarqawi's group was in "disarray".

The USAid document was attached to project documents for the Focused Stabilisation in Strategic Cities Initiative, a $1,3-billion project to curb violence in cities such as Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, Kirkuk and Najaf, through job creation and investment in local communities.

The paper, whose existence was first reported by The Washington Post, argues that insurgent attacks "significantly damage the country's infrastructure and cause a tide of adverse economic and social effects that ripple across Iraq".

"In the social breakdown that has accompanied the defeat of Saddam Hussein's regime criminal elements within Iraqi society have had almost free rein," the document says. "In the absence of an effective police force capable of ensuring public safety, criminal elements flourish ... Baghdad is reportedly divided into zones controlled by organised criminal groups-clans."

The lawlessness has had an impact on basic freedoms, USAid argues, particularly in the south, where "social liberties have been curtailed dramatically by roving bands of self-appointed religious-moral police". USAid officials did not respond to calls seeking comment on Tuesday.

Judith Yaphe, a former CIA expert on Iraq now teaching at the National Defence University in Washington, said while the administration's pronouncements on security were rosy, the USAid version was pessimistic. "It's a very difficult environment, but if I read this right, they are saying there is violence everywhere and I don't think it's true," Yaphe said. She said USAid could have published the document to pressure the White House to increase its funding. The administration does not intend to request more reconstruction funds after the end of this year.

- Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.asp...aking_news/breaking_news__international_news/
 
I don't think USAid was pessimistic. PBS had a show on frontline about private security and KBR in Iraq and when you saw them trying to get around Baghdad it was crazy how fuckin scared they were. One of their guards got killed the next day too. Just going to the airport with "Russian Security Consultants" was wild every time the traffic stopped they got ready to kill or die smh
 
I'm not a military man so forgive my ignorance, but I am a bit confused how we can have 150000+ boots on the ground, ships, tanks and helicopters and the situation is so poor. Based on the assessment on TLC and history television, you get the impression the US mostly are hunkered down in the green zone or in bunkers and when they have to go out dash through the streets like scared rabbits afraid if getting killed. Why don't they just put in as many troops as it takes to squash this insurency and get the fuck out. Won't this in the long run reduce casualties, instead of this slow death at current?
 
because 150k troops arent there for that, otherwise most iraqi cities would look like fallujah does right now.

they are there to further the political process that all of you think is not worth the cost.

which is cool of course.
 
Greed said:
because 150k troops arent there for that, otherwise most iraqi cities would look like fallujah does right now.

they are there to further the political process that all of you think is not worth the cost.

which is cool of course.
HG asked a good question though. Various analysis tend to point to the fact that we went in undermanned and we've continued to be, undermanned. I know this is, in part, a battle of the American public opinion vs. Bush's opinion/estimates, but as Bush has been willing to keep his dick out on the chopping block (staying the course in the face of opinion shifts), why not put enough of it out there, in the form of sufficient troops, to get the job done ?

Does the refusal to commit more troops mean, deep down, the insurgency can't be smashed with more troops ???

Is there any realism to the idea that Iraqi troops will be able to take over and calm the insurgency? I really question that. Reeks of Vietnamization - didn't work there and no real reason its going to work in Iraq. And I say that because so far, we can't point to a single area in Iraq that the Iraqi army (or what ever its called) holds and commands ground. Maybe there is such an area -- where is it ???

QueEx
 
hoodedgoon said:
I'm not a military man so forgive my ignorance, but I am a bit confused how we can have 150000+ boots on the ground, ships, tanks and helicopters and the situation is so poor. Based on the assessment on TLC and history television, you get the impression the US mostly are hunkered down in the green zone or in bunkers and when they have to go out dash through the streets like scared rabbits afraid if getting killed. Why don't they just put in as many troops as it takes to squash this insurency and get the fuck out. Won't this in the long run reduce casualties, instead of this slow death at current?
paul bremer and military kats asked for more troops but its generally believed this didnt get approved because they didnt want to start up the draft - since the 150,000 is pushing the limits of the current volunteer force


queex-point to a single area in Iraq that the Iraqi army (or what ever its called) holds and commands ground

The Kurd controlled north- north of Kirkuk because Kirkuk damn sure aint under control
 
QueEx said:
HG asked a good question though. Various analysis tend to point to the fact that we went in undermanned and we've continued to be, undermanned. I know this is, in part, a battle of the American public opinion vs. Bush's opinion/estimates, but as Bush has been willing to keep his dick out on the chopping block (staying the course in the face of opinion shifts), why not put enough of it out there, in the form of sufficient troops, to get the job done ?

i've pointed out before this thread that we have different ideas of what the job is. i dont view the job as killing people. i view the use of the military as a means to the political goals.

is the priority to kill the enemy hiding amongst the civilians? i dont think so. thats a nice fringe activity but the ends we are searching for is a viable political process. they are linked for overall victory but they can be addressed at different speeds to ensure progress.

QueEx said:
Does the refusal to commit more troops mean, deep down, the insurgency can't be smashed with more troops ???
they've already admitted that. i only did a cursory search of the board and cant guarantee that it was even posted in the 1st place, but remember last year when rumsfeld said we arent going to be the ones to defeat the insurgency.

of course he got reamed politically and back tracked a bit but he still said it and he didnt back track all that much.


QueEx said:
Is there any realism to the idea that Iraqi troops will be able to take over and calm the insurgency? I really question that. Reeks of Vietnamization
no offense, but thats not surprising since we've been told by war oponents since day one that this is vietnam to go along with all the other dire predictions. vietnam is vietnam. iraq is not vietnam. unless you feel that all insurgencies are ultimately the same no matter what the dynamics are on the ground.

also, as far as my personal exposure to the coverage of the war, the hot spots are less than 25% of the total country. sunni areas. i dont see a reason not to hand over control of peaceful areas to iraqis. its not like we're leaving the country after we hand over control anyway. we'll just be more concentrated in the hot spot.
 
QueEx: HG asked a good question though. Various analysis tend to point to the fact that we went in undermanned and we've continued to be, undermanned. I know this is, in part, a battle of the American public opinion vs. Bush's opinion/estimates, but as Bush has been willing to keep his dick out on the chopping block (staying the course in the face of opinion shifts), why not put enough of it out there, in the form of sufficient troops, to get the job done ?

Greed: i've pointed out before this thread that we have different ideas of what the job is. i dont view the job as killing people. i view the use of the military as a means to the political goals.

is the priority to kill the enemy hiding amongst the civilians? i dont think so. thats a nice fringe activity but the ends we are searching for is a viable political process. they are linked for overall victory but they can be addressed at different speeds to ensure progress.
I don't know if we have different ideas of get the job done or not.

You know I think invading was the wrong thing - Saddam was a bad mofo but he didn't pose an "Imminent Threat" to us and there was no demonstrable A.Q. connection as was pandered by the Administration (I recall from the old board that you asked: where did GW say it was "imminent" and I pointed to the tone of his 2003 State of the Union). Nevertheless, we're there and we've got a situation.

As you know, killing people is exactly what war is. Whenever the military is engaged where someone shoots back, killing will occur. At this very moment, one of the major missions of our military is to forge political objectives. If those that disagree don't agree to disagree on those political objectives and put their arms down, someone is going to die. There are no two ways about that.

The political reality is: the insurgency is standing between today and political stability. There is more agreement among Shia and Sunni, but neither of them or the Iraqi people in general have "Security." Political agreement without security is nothing -- death will still frequent the average Joe al Iraq everyday. Hence, the insurgency (at least the major factions of it) has either to be put down or it has to be brought into the political realm. If neither happens, we will either be there for time immemorial fighting it off - or we will withdraw and it will rule the day by chaos or worse.

I think what we would both like to see is a politically stable Iraq and hopefully not averse to our interest. Thats getting the job done.

QueEx: Does the refusal to commit more troops mean, deep down, the insurgency can't be smashed with more troops ???

Greed: they've already admitted that. i only did a cursory search of the board and cant guarantee that it was even posted in the 1st place, but remember last year when rumsfeld said we arent going to be the ones to defeat the insurgency.

of course he got reamed politically and back tracked a bit but he still said it and he didnt back track all that much.
Yeah, I watched as it happened. But, I didn't see a noticeable change of strategy after the admission.

QueEx: Is there any realism to the idea that Iraqi troops will be able to take over and calm the insurgency? I really question that. Reeks of Vietnamization

Greed: no offense, but thats not surprising since we've been told by war oponents since day one that this is vietnam to go along with all the other dire predictions. vietnam is vietnam. iraq is not vietnam. unless you feel that all insurgencies are ultimately the same no matter what the dynamics are on the ground.

also, as far as my personal exposure to the coverage of the war, the hot spots are less than 25% of the total country. sunni areas. i dont see a reason not to hand over control of peaceful areas to iraqis. its not like we're leaving the country after we hand over control anyway. we'll just be more concentrated in the hot spot.
Is this war <u>exactly</u> like Vietnam? No. But, as in any situation, there are parallels from one to another. Without question a major prong in getting the U.S. out of V.N. had to do with turning the war over to South Vietnamese troops {"Vietnamization"). Training them, conducting ops with them, and backing them -- just like in Iraq ("Iraqization"). History tells us it didn't work in South Vietnam and nothing tells us it has a real chance to work in Iraq in the next 12 months. Denying parallels is useless; learning from them can be priceless. I'm not offended.

We're not leaving Iraq? I wouldn't bet on it. Just as you noticed the administrations retreat from "more troops can't defeat the insurgency" we are witnessing exit in the making. Its a slow process, sort of like evolution. But its seeds have been planted: you may not admit it, but in the face of the "Pull Out Now" battle that took place only weeks ago, Bush blinked. He capitulated. The rhetoric changed from no pull-out to phasing down, i.e., some will be removed in 2006, by attrition or other means. I don't care if but one less soldier is in Iraq in 2006 than there was in 2005, the exit tone and eventual strategy has been set into motion. If for no other reason, our budget/economy can't stand it!

We'll both watch the political wrangling. But don't miss the result.

QueEx
 
Back
Top