1) That we beat the Sunni extremists

2) That we beat the Sunni insurgency

3) That we beat the Shia extremists

4) That the Iraq security forces are improving

One wonders who writes these things and how much they get paid. But these points are simplistic and easily dismissed.

1) By all accounts the extremists defeated themselves, the Iraqis are not now and historically has not been prone to religious extremism.

2) The Sunni insurgency was defeated by bribing the insurgents and then arming them as the Sons of Iraq, Awakening Councils or whatever. A move that a good number of people have predicted will explode in the coalition faces once the bribes dry up.

3) If we beat the Shia, someone obviously forgot to let them know. The Desert Fox has proved a capable and cunning tactician with a penchant for politics. If we push the Shia into a corner or disregarding Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, we will learn precisely how non-defeated the Shia are.

4) By most accounts, yes. I’ll give them 1 out of 4.

But even if we were to go line-by-line to disassemble the puff and nonsense, we still would be faced with the same conclusion that the report ignores; the same fundamental problem that we have created and are unable to solve in Iraq.

There is no Iraqi state

Al-Maliki may have been ordained as the nominal head of the Iraqi state. But it is a state that no one disputes dances to the beat of the coalition forces drum, with Washington, D.C., conducting the band. If the coalition troops vanished from Iraq tomorrow at sunrise it is a safe gamble that there would be a new head of Iraq and a different government by sunset. This point is largely, though unintentionally, conceded by AEI in their own report.

The political reality that enables me to make the claim that I just did about winning and achieving our objectives arises from several things. Congress and the administration browbeat the Maliki government into a national legislative patch, the so-called benchmarks. We insisted on eighteen benchmarks that the Iraqis had to accomplish. The rationale was that by forcing national legislation, political reconciliation with the Sunnis would occur.

So the path to success was in getting Al-Maliki to do what Washington wanted. Of course! It stands to reason that an executive from the upper class enclave of New Haven, Connecticut, the sheltered graduate students at the State Department and the dweebs and dorks in Congress have a better grasp on how to run Iraq than Nouri Al-Maliki, an Iraqi.

It is not to say that success in Iraq is impossible or possible at this point. The U.S. has embroiled itself in long war, a fact that AEI seems glibly ignorant of, and defeat is still well within our grasp. This, of course, does not compute. As the preface to the article begins:

General Jack Keane spoke at an AEI conference, stating flatly that we are winning in Iraq and that the momentum is irreversible

I would caution General Keane against statements proclaiming inevitable. History has a way of turning inevitable successes into resounding failures.

Admiral Driscoll had lots of good info and was a pleasure to speak with.

The Ball Gunner’s lick is below. But my question was not nearly as sharp as some of the others. I encourage you to read the whole exchange, here.

On a side note. This is really a great program. The participants, on all sides, are honest and the replies are sharp and to the point. The transcripts are really transcripts — the questioners stumbles and the questionees stumbles aren’t edited out or polished up. I’d like to take this moment to thank the DoD for this opportunity.

Q Well, Admiral, thank you very much for your time. My question sort of, I guess, runs to politics.

Obviously closer relationship with Iran, probably not really what the U.S. is after right now, as far as Iraq-Iran. So is there worry that a growth in power, from the al-Sadr political bloc, might push for a closer Iran alliance, might orient, try to orient Iraq politics more to Tehran and away from Washington? And if so, how would that hamper U.S. factions in the region?

ADM. DRISCOLL: Well, I think that the realization here by the coalition is that, you know, and we’ve said this many times, Iran and Iraq should have, you know, a healthy relationship.

They share a very long common border. They, you know, there’s a common religion. And they have great economic interest. There’s huge money that goes across that border in the form of trade and tourism, with the pilgrimages and such.

So there should be a normal, healthy relationship. President Maliki has asked the Iranians, you know. You can import tomatoes. You can import all the goods you want. But don’t import rockets and things like that.
He has asked the Iranian leadership to control what’s coming across that border. And they have the capability of doing that. He wants to have a normal relationship and has said that he kind of expects that. The Iranians, if
they’re going to have this relationship, are going to have to make some decisions in terms of the way ahead.

With respect to Sadr and the Sadr trend, they have made a pledge that they are going to become part of the political process. And they are going to be dedicated to helping the people of Iraq. And they have said that they will not attack Iraqi security forces. And they want to participate in the political process. I think that everybody’s encouraged by that, because that’s what we are — we are trying to do. We are trying to
encourage them to be participants in that process.

In terms of how they’re influenced — you know, if Sadr’s influenced by the Iranians, you know, that’s this political question I really can’t answer. But we’re encouraged by the democratic process. The Sadr trend said they want to participate. I think Prime Minister Maliki has demonstrated that he is interested in having a normal two- way relationship with the Iranians and all other neighbors here in the region.

Of course, Obama, McCain and everyone else in the world are rushing to heap praise on “The Surge” (lemon-lime flavor) for its successes without any real idea of what has been accomplished. Yes, violence is down, the streets are quiet, things seem to be improving, but this has all been bought at the expense that Iraq is now more reliant on U.S. forces than before. Post-surge troop levels are higher still than pre-surge levels. No one really knows that fewer U.S. forces mean, but its a fair guess that the bad guys have read Mao and Lao Tzu even if we have not. No one was looking to kick up trouble when the boys were in town.

Being that a good portion of these guys are still around and waiting for the green flag, the best option for Al-Maliki is showing the Americans the door and tapping his foot impatiently until we leave.

This is only the opening shots of what looks suspiciously like a good old fashioned power struggle in Iraq. The U.S. got real cozy with Europe after the fun times of kings and monarchs alternately killing or sleeping with each other, so its experience in messy political arrangements could probably fit on the back of an envelope. Besides that, the U.S. has some of the best natural barriers ever designed - the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans on the sides and two non-military powers to the top and bottom. Throughout a nasty, brutish and short history the U.S. hasn’t had to cut many deals with the end goal of staying the hell alive.

Iraq, on the other hand, aint the U.S. Iraq sits smack dab on top of some of the nastiest most blood soaked soil in the world. If you don’t believe me, try this fun little bit of compressed world history:

If you really want to score extra points you’ve also got to realize that Iraq is also the major fault line between Sunni and Shia Islam, not to mention half a dozen or so break aways up north in Kurd land.

The end of the story is that living, and especially governing in Iraq is a story of busting heads, knees and caps. We thought we had it bad during the Civil War when folks lined up like they were going to the movies and marched in step toward each other like a bunch of morons. You can just imagine some old timey biblical warriors, the ones that thought raping and killing and all was what you did when the battle was over. Sherman might have thought he was tough when he leveled Atlanta — his one foul up was that after burning the city he should have slaughtered the survivors THEN salted the earth to make the land uninhabitable. Point is, at the end of the day your Americans don’t know much about keeping your head on your shoulders in a bad neighborhood but you can bet al-Maliki and the current bureaucrats in Iraq are putting in their overtime to keep the shrouds over their buns when the Americans eventually leave.

What this mean isn’t much of a shock. Nouri Al Maliki is a Shia Muslim so was the guy before him, Ibrahim al-Jaafari. The president, Jalal Talabani, is Sunni but Kurdish, and the rest of the Sunni in Iraq have a pretty good recent history of killing the Kurds. The recent hold up over elections stem from Kurdish gripes about trying to continue the de-Kurdification of Kirkuk started under Saddam Hussein. Guess what group Hussein, a Sunni Muslim, moved up there to route the Kurds out? That would be the same group that just rejoined the government upon the likely realization that Sunni voices were about to get a lot quieter in Iraq.

So the obvious choice for Iraq to buddy up with is their dear, sweet neighbor - Iran. Well, what do you know - there they are! And can you imagine a worse outcome for Washington, the U.S. military and the Republican Party than five years worth of effort, thousands dead or injured and round abouts of a trillion dollars only to have our pet country snuggling up with the region’s biggest anti-American antagonist? There isn’t a writer alive that can conjure up irony like father time. It’s like the MasterCard commercial from hell. The social discontent that would follow an Iraq-Iran alliance — priceless.

But it’s not like there are any other cards on the table. The Shia majority in Iraq isn’t going to have anything to do with the Wahhabi nuts in Saudi Arabia, the Kurds aren’t going to agree to any agreement with Turkey, Syria can’t even manage Lebanon. Who’s left - Jordan and Kuwait? Boy, there’s a security alliance you can hang your hat on. Not to mention all the good press you get by buddying up with the most pro-Israel country in the region or of going to a nation you steam-rolled 20 years ago with your hat in your hands.

None of this really matters if al-Maliki can’t shuck the Americans off his back, which he seems to be doing with a sudden spring of enthusiasm. Contrary to the noise from the cable pundits Al Sadr is not defeated, the Sunni separatists are not run out and the Kurdish militants aren’t giving up. As bright as General Petraeus is, when it comes to understanding Iraq he’s going to have a 1,000 point handicap to even an idiot that is from there. If al-Maliki can’t prove he’s the top dog then someone will be along to replace him, and someone who might not sit so well with the U.S. Chances are, even if we do luck up and keep al-Maliki the pretense of a kinder, gentler, democratic Iraq will likely go out the window. The Middle-East has always been a place of conflicting cultures and civilizations and it probably always will be.

What we’re seeing is a gamble in Iraq. We’re seeing whether ours will pay off, whether we have the good sense to leave when asked. If we don’t we’ll delegitimize Al-Maliki and anyone chosen to replace him as an American puppet. Then we’ll see if al-Maliki can steer the cart without any help. If it doesn’t work, we’ll see how well Americans handle excruciating dissapointment.

John McCain has criticized Barrack Obama for not going “over there,” so the Democratic nominee has decided to go get his “done gone and seen” credentials.

Like any good project manager, any general officer is going to show off his best and brightest while carefully keeping the unpainted rooms of the house and the smelly kids tucked away in the backyard. This is not an information gathering trip so much as a pitch - Barrack Obama will get the “fund us better” pitch just like John McCain got the “fund us better” pitch and every national politician that goes gets the “fund us better” pitch.

Since Obama is apparently hauling half of the entire U.S. press corps with him there will undoubtedly be the token shots of him buying a rug /talking to the locals with a soulful look on his face / looking patriotic with the troops.

Then we can all pitch in and get him a “I went to Iraq and all I got was this lousy presidency” T-shirt.

It was to be the big shiny jewel of the Iraq war.

Anbar province, that grimy hole that was home to the Sunni insurgency was to officially leave the hands of the U.S. Marines and fall to the Iraqis.

It was scheduled, then rescheduled, and now… canned until later in the year.

  BAGHDAD — In a sign of the bitter political struggle playing out in western Iraq, the Anbar Provincial Council appealed Saturday for the American military to delay its handover of provincial security responsibilities to Iraqi forces until at least the end of the year, according to the council chairman.

Any long-term delay in the transfer would be a blow to American efforts to portray the province, once a Sunni extremist stronghold, as having nearly completed a security turnaround. And the request is likely to intensify fears among Anbaris that quarrels between the two powers in the province — the entrenched Iraqi Islamic Party and the up-and-coming political movement of pro-American Awakening Councils — could escalate into armed conflict.

Golly. What a shock.

PS - TWO Ball Gunner updates in one day. It’s like Christmas!

Always fans of glorious military battles, the American public, aided by news services that really are ignorant about war, like to think these forays into guerrilla territory are some sort of frenzied armored lozenge rammed down the throat of hell where snarling demons chomp at the heels of soldiers.

The truth (always more mundane than reality) is that when the superheroes barreled into Sadr City they probably found……
barbers, shop keeps, mechanics, children, bums, restaurants, tailors, etc…

These sorts of wars make for boring reporting, atrocious fiction and movies like “Jarhead,” which four whole people went to see. We love to think of the military charging bravely through the Ardennes Forest during the Battle of the Bulge because it sounds exciting and we get to ignore the grimmer details. But, these grand “decisive battles” just aren’t happening in Iraq. No matter who wishes it were so.

To get a better idea, a friend of mine who spent time in Vietnam described the experience as “months of boredom followed by a few minutes of sheer terror.” Unfortunately, guerrillas are very, very, good at using those few minutes to kill lots of people.

But this is where people foul up. There isn’t and won’t be any excitement in Sadr City. Guerrillas don’t fight when they’re outnumbered. Instead, the U.S. and Iraqi forces will go in there and make a lot of noise, they’ll probably rough some people up, somebody in a tank will accidentally smash grandma’s falafel stand, someone will impose a curfew, then lift it, then impose it again, they’ll bottle up an area of 2 million people and set up one entrance and exit point making it hard to bring in supplies or food. Then, to claim success, they’ll snatch up about 20 people that the press releases will call senior leaders and scram.

Once they leave, the Mahdi Army will help rebuild grandma falafel stand, they’ll deliver food and medical supplies, and once the U.S. and Iraqi forces shove off and leave a mess, the local guys will wind up looking like the Eagle Scouts.

I realize the Petraeus policy has been a sensible form of counter insurgency looking to avoid just this sort of scenario. But a platoon of infantry in the heart of Sadr City doesn’t have time for that touchy-feely crap. They’re well aware that a good number of eyes on them aren’t friendly.

Thing is, the Mahdi Army knows that, too. In fact, they’re probably counting on it.

Primarily, it’s not clear what Al Sadr gains from prolonging his cease fire. The elements in Iraq and the surrounding region with animosity toward the U.S. have not gone away, and unless the U.S. military is fielding experts in mental judo, they haven’t decided they like us, either. Al Sadr got his name into the books by taking a ragtag band and making at least a credible stand against U.S. forces. People started heading his way because they thought it meant a chance to stand against the Americans. If Al Sadr starts coming across as weak or timid, his following might dissipate as fast as it formed.

So, what gives?

One theory is that the big cheese has lost control of his Mahdi Army and is trying to reestablish himself. This could go either way for the U.S., if the force remains fractured then they’ll remain impotent as a side effect. Being able to write the whole group off would be about as awesome as apple pie falling from the sky, and about as likely. The other possibility is that that someone else will elbow he of the black turban out of the way. Al Sadr’s got a legacy in the area because, as they say in the sticks, “his pa was big doin’s.”  Bumping the Al Sadrs out of SADR CITY would be a mutiny right up there with the HMS Bounty.

The other thought is that aid from Shia Iran might have suddenly become lean. Al Sadr might just be a nut with a martyr complex, but he’s not a stupid nut with a martyr complex. He’s not up to bleeding himself purely for Iran’s benefit. We’re not hearing as much mouth out of Iran, and there appears to be some dissension in the ranks between the clerics who run the country and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who serves as sort of a Daffy Duck spokesman. So it’s likely there’s some sorting going on in Iran, too. I’d expect the volume to come back up around November.

This doesn’t even exclude the possibilities, that Al Sadr is being bought off by the U.S. with the knowledge that in a post U.S. Iraq he will have some serious leverage. This would be politically risky, because if he is seen to be collaborating with the Americans his claim to fame will be up.

It’s an odd game being played. But Al Sadr has shown himself to be pretty adroit at following the music. He’s only 34-years old, so he’s likely to be around for quite some time.

 __________________________________________________

    But if silence in Sadr City is the upside, the U.S. may be forced to pay for the blessing in the north. Turkey has already announced that they have begun military ground operations into northern Iraq in attempts to quell violence from the Kurdish-nationalists in the PKK.

    Turkey has invaded Iraq, a nominally sovereign country.

    What this will mean for the region is unclear. No one is naive enough to assume that Turkey is doing this on the sly. Someone is feeding them intelligence, and no one has better intelligence in Iraq than the U.S. Given that the president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, is Kurdish, this encroachment into what is supposed to be sovereign Kurdish territory will undoubtedly echo through the Iraqi parliament and into Iraq - U.S. relations.

    The Kurdish north has long been the U.S. success story of the war. The Kurds were third-rate citizens under Saddam and have seen a cultural and ethnic revival since the 2003 invasion. A destabilization of the region would be a tremendous setback for U.S. goals in the are, and a worst case scenario where the Kurds make a sovereign break for it would mean a dog pile between Syria, Turkey, Iran and the Kurdish north, with the U.S. being forced to take a side that would hurt its goals either way. This would also give the Russians a chance to return the favor for Kosovo by rushing aid to the Kurds. A whole lot of regional ugliness would ensue.

    A number of events are playing out within Iraq and internationally that are going to be making waves for years to come. The next few weeks will be interesting to watch.