Readers of this site know that lately I’ve become something of a gloomy gus about our prospects of succeeding in Iraq. By way of a short explanation, let me just say that this does not reflect any loss of confidence in the performance of our troops nor does it mean that I thought the invasion a mistake – yet. I do think that the political situation absolutely must be resolved as soon as possible so that the government can start addressing the numerous issues that confront the nation and contribute to it’s instability.
I was a little amused this morning to see that Prime Minister Jaafari is whistling past the graveyard when he says that Secretary Rice and Minister Straw’s visits this past week “backfired.” One thing about a backfire is that you better not be kissin’ the tail pipe when it happens and unfortunately for the soon to be ex-Prime Minister, he’s got his lips firmly wrapped around the exhaust hole. Now that 3 of the 5 major Shia parties that make up the dominant coalition have called for his resignation, his position is rapidly becoming untenable, although I see in this New York Times article that the reporter was able to scrounge up one – just one – member of the opposition who agreed that the foreigners should have kept out of the business.
Jaafari may be on the ropes but he’s hanging on in hopes that his patrone Muqtada al-Sadr will come to his rescue. Al-Sadr himself may be losing some influence due to the fact that his militia has been participating in the cycle of revenge killings and other sectarian violence that most Iraqis are now seeing as the main threat to peace and stability. Still, the self-styled religious leader has 100,000 men with guns and should not be taken lightly. How that power translates into political influence is probably being worked out as I write this. Expect the Prime Minister to be given a prominent cabinet post in the new government.
Despite the political deadlock, despite the continuing (but reduced) sectarian violence, and despite the continuing vitality of the insurgency, there is one small ray of hope – and it may surprise you:
81, 76, 50, 49, 43, 25What are these numbers? This week’s Powerball winners? ... No, they’re the number of troops that have died in hostile actions in Iraq for each of the past six months. That last number represents the lowest level of troop deaths in a year, and second-lowest in two years.
But it must be that the insurgency is turning their assault on Iraqi military and police, who are increasingly taking up the slack, right? 215, 176, 193, 189, 158, 193 (and the three months before that were 304, 282, 233)
Okay, okay, so insurgents aren’t engaging us; they’re turning increasingly to car bombs then, right? 70, 70, 70, 68, 30, 30
Civilians then. They’re just garroting poor civilians. 527, 826, 532, 732, 950, 446 (upper bound, two months before that were 2489 and 1129).
The sharp drop in American casualties is great news and is due to several factors, not the least of which is our constant improvement refining our ground tactics in fighting the insurgency. There is also the fact that we have deliberately reduced the number of combat missions (on orders from the Pentagon who presumably got them from the President) in order to reduce our killed and wounded. I want to say that this was not done for political reasons but the evidence is to the contrary. That said, by re-deploying our forces to the countryside and out of urban areas, we are forcing the Iraqi army and police to start doing the job (with American advisers always close by). The results there have been mixed so far. The Iraqi army seems to be making steady and even encouraging progress. The problems with the police – poor training, infiltration by militias and insurgents, and just not enough of them – have been well documented here and elsewhere.
But in looking at those numbers and seeing a slow, steady reduction in casualties as well as the attacks that cause them, one can barely discern a silver lining in the clouds. But none of it will matter if the politicians can’t get past their differences and forge a truly broad-based coalition government that will give the Sunnis some confidence that they will not be steamrolled by the Shia majority. The Shia’s are balking because in order to instill that confidence, they have to give up a heck of a lot more than they are willing to do at this point. It’s understandable. Like any political party that comes out on top in an election, they want the rewards that go with that victory. And having to give the Sunnis – their deadly enemies for so many years – cabinet posts and other assurances sticks in their craw. Right now, they are unwilling to go the extra mile. Whether that will change anytime soon may depend on how much pressure American Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad is willing to put on all the parties involved.
It’s a delicate job for Khalilzad who so far has proved himself fairly adept at keeping the process going despite the anti-Sunni violence and rhetoric from some of the radicals. He may have to insinuate himself into the process more forcefully to get the politicians off dead center which carries risks of offending the Shias – especially Ayatollah al-Sistani who is apparently sick of American interference, having refused to even open a letter from President Bush last week. At this point, there might not be a choice.
Reduced casualties is good news. Whether this is a lull before another round of increased insurgent attacks or whether it represents a slow petering out of the rebellion only time will tell. Either way, it won’t matter a fig unless we have a government sooner rather than later.
UPDATE
The Associated Press is reporting that the Prime Minister and other Shia members of the coalition have agreed to toss the question of Jaafari’s fate into the lap of Ayatollah al-Sistani:
Al-Attiyah said the deadlock had become “very complicated” and al-Jaafari’s supporters within the alliance want to ask the advice of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country’s most respected Shiite cleric, before deciding their next move.Al-Attiyah said other Shiite politicians who are not affiliated with the major Shiite parties also have agreed to seek al-Sistani’s opinion.
Turning to al-Sistani shows the inability of the Shiite alliance to resolve the standoff, with many Shiite politicians fearing that a move to force out al-Jaafari would splinter their alliance.
A little speculation with your coffee…
I think this could be very good news. Prime Minister Jaafari needs some cover in order to step down gracefully (and safely) and al-Sistani may just provide it. By suggesting the PM step aside, the Ayatollah defuses a potentially dangerous situation regarding al-Sadr who would be very resentful if his Shia partners forced his hand-picked man out of office. Jaafari himself might be relieved in that his life expecancy probably would be reduced if he agreed to leave without the young cleric’s blessing. With Sistani taking the lead, al-Sadr can hardly complain about whatever decision the Ayatollah comes to.
Will al-Sistani rise to the occassion? Or will he toss the ball back to the negotiators and wash his hands of the situation? Keep in mind that al-Sistani has shown impatience with young al-Sadr in the past and he may see this as a perfect opportunity to put the upstart in his place. Watch this development closely, especially al-Sistani’s statement. It could be the break the negotiators need to get the process moving again.
UPDATE AND CLARIFICATION
The Commissar points out in the comments that the civilian casualty number for March is almost certainly too low. He read the Brookings numbers and believes that they reflect only a partial total for that month.
Given the level of violence and deaths during March I agree with that assessment. In fact, the last figures I saw on the sectarian violence alone since the bombing of the shrine in Samarra on February 22 was over 1300. That does not include those killed by car bombs, IED’s, and insurgent attacks.
While that diminishes the impact of the report slightly, I think the thrust of the report is still valid.
MORE: – In fact, the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count (ICC) site lists 193 Iraqi police and 901 civilians died in March for a total of 1094. Curiously, that number, while much higher than previous months, is lower than 6 months ago.
Don’t quite know what that means except we can only hope it’s a trend.
10:55 am
Rick,
Good post. But the civilian casualty numbers for March are wrong. “Wrong?” Well, the Brookings data does not match Iraq Body Count nor Iraq Coalition Casualties (probably sourced from IBC).
I looked at the Brookings data briefly and it seemed to leave an ‘out’ about incomplete March data. The ‘446’ is quite an understatement.
I almost emailed Reynolds, but don’t have the time/stomach for this kind of clarification effort. If you want to take this on, have it at it.
(I like our side to be accurate, that’s all.)
12:53 pm
[...] Clenched fist salute to Rick Moran. His excellent article on this topic prompted me to email him about this, and he quickly updated his post. [Permalink] [Trackback URL] Trackback URL for this entry: http://acepilots.com/mt/2006/04/06/declining-civilian-casualties/trackback/ [...]
1:53 pm
You think you got nutjobs in merika? Arabs wrote the bloody book on nutjobs, mate. Why are you thinking all arab countries are dictatorships? Because the people are such bloody good citizens? Think again.
1:59 pm
Rick,
A few random thoughts.
THe drop in deaths is just plain good news with no possible down side – even if it’s temporary. The drop in the number of attacks is even better news.
This leads to questions about the sectarian violence, the “civil war,” and the claimed revenge killings. More than one of the reports of large numbers of bodies found have turned out to be at best questionable. In all cases, there seems to have been an assumption that they are the result of Sunnis and Shia killing each other, and there have been hints of Interior Ministry/police “death squads.” None of the news reports (or blog comments) i’ve seen on this consider the possibility that the Sunnis and Shia are both being killed by the foreign terror interests for the specific purpose of starting a sectarian war. If the reports of police involvement hava basis, that still does not means that it is the policy, official or unofficial, of any government agency. The police involved could well be working off the clock, or might not be part of the security forces at all, just wearing stolen uniforms (which seem to be common items in seized weapons caches).
This leads back to your comments on problems with the police. There are indeed problems of infiltration, which is why I have my suspicions about the police death squads. It isn’t surprising that the local police have such problems. Some of the characteristics that make the local police valuable also make them vulnerable. Thier closness to the population in both origins and operations gives the local police an edge in getting information, developing leads, and knowing their areas. It also makes them most vulnerable to infiltration and corruption (why did Elliot Ness get sent to Chicago?).
The 100K figure for al Sadr’s militia – I wonder how realistic that is in terms of the number of dedicated fighters he can actually turn out.
There is an upside to the political wrangeling, and that is that it is happening at all. Granted it can’t go on forever without progress being made, but on the bright side, the Iraqis haven’t given up on it yet, so maybe we shouldn’t be quick to do so.
2:10 pm
[...] Clenched fist salute: Rick Moran [Permalink] [Trackback URL] Trackback URL for this entry: http://acepilots.com/mt/2006/04/06/shiites-turn-to-sistani/trackback/ [...]
2:47 pm
Rick,
Good catch on the Shiites tossing the Jaafari situation into Sistani’s lap. The Trib article doesnt exactly highlight that, does it?
11:05 pm
First time I read your comments on Irak…
I understand you’re a real patriot and I respect that.
I’m just wondering if you could be bought by the bull of crap they sold you to get in there?
Amongst any other land in earth where there’s war, starvation, genocide or whatever else, why would your administration sell you this particular one?
Of course, I believe you don’t see short terms with this and by doing so, you bear the fact that America lied to the world in order to achieve obejtives they simply didn’t want to back by words…;
The administration wanted a good step in the region to implant a long term base that would be more than useful in the future. They went there because they thougt it was the most strategic and EASY place to get in. Let’s face it, Saddam was a pretty easy one compared to any others around him.
So, the question is : Why did this weak admin had to lie to the entire world? Was it worth the take? You tell me.
3:14 am
They went there because Iraq was the primary reason why we ever in al Qaeda’s sights. And because Iraq would be the primary beneficiary if we caved to al Qaeda’s demands. Enough Americans had died for containment to make regime change an acceptable and backing away from containment unacceptable.
7:36 am
Sorry but we all damn well know that Saddam had nothing to do with AL-Q or any terrorists…Saudi Arabia however, is not quite white… Irak was not linked to terrorists…that the main propaganda line to sell it to Americans…
Hope you would’ve know that by now!
7:39 am
Dear Live:
Read any newspapers lately?
From today’s Strategypage:
Prior to the liberation of Iraq in 2003, and in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, there were indications that Saddam’s regime was at least talking with al Qaeda. The most publicized (and hotly debated) were reports from the Czech government that Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of the 911 hijackers, met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague in April, 2001. Less publicized, and far more damning, is the case of Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. Shakir was an attendee at the January, 2000 al-Qaeda summit in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia, after escorting at least one of the 911 hijackers through Malaysian customs while working as a greeter for Malaysian Airlines. Shakir got that job through the Iraqi embassy, which also controlled his work schedule. Six days after 911, Shakir was caught with information pertaining to the 1993 World Trade Center attack and a 1995 al Qaeda plan to destroy multiple airliners over the Pacific Ocean. In November, 2001, the London Observer reported the presence of a terrorist training camp in Salman Pak, which is about 15 miles southeast of Baghdad. There, men were trained in how to hijacking airliners, using knives and the bare hands. This is similar to the methods used in the attacks as well. The coincidences were clearly piling up.
The liberation of Iraq, however, adds more information to the mix. The first of these documents was unearthed in April, 2003, by Toronto Star reporter Mitch Potter. This 1998 document discussed bringing an envoy from Osama bin Laden to Baghdad to discuss “the future of our relationship with him”. This is the first evidence from inside the regime backing the long-running suspicions of a connection. In October, 2004, CNSNews.com published additional documents. These not only showed that Saddam Hussein was looking to hit at America (including looking into methods to attack American forces in Somalia), but he also started providing support to a group led by Ayman al-Zawahiri (Al-Jehad al-Islamy). Saddam’s regime was also attempting to acquire mustard gas and anthrax.
In 2005, even more information leaked. This time, it was an evidence summary for an al-Qaeda operative being held at Guantanamo Bay. This summary indicated that the al Qaeda operative traveled to Pakistan with an Iraqi intelligence officer as part of an abortive plan to attack the American and British embassies with chemical mortar shells. This was not only a joint operation between the terrorist group and Iraqi intelligence, it involved a weapon of mass destruction.
The present document releases from the Director of National Intelligence add even more. One of the damning documents was Document CMPC-2003-001488, (possibly changed to ISGP-2003-00014127), a letter detailing a report from a source in Afghanistan discussing a meeting with a Taliban consul. This letter indicates that not only did Saddam’s regime have a relationship with al Qaeda, but that the relationship lasted through at least September 15, 2001.
This review of the evidence shows that the containment was limited to conventional military efforts at best. Saddam Hussein was not only seeking a means to attack American interests around the world, his regime had already worked with al Qaeda in an effort to launch a terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction. If this is containment that is “working well”, what would containment that was failing look like? – Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)
Get stuffed.
7:48 am
Yes…..I think we’ve turned this thing around….I’m no longer going to be a gloomy gus…...
7:48 am
what’s this source?? Tell me more about the «Strategy page»...is it a blog?
What I mean is you all very well know that Irak wasn’t the primary threat after 9-11 guys…that’s all and that’s what your admin hasn’t been able to tell you in order to prevent any more dissentment in the country…
7:52 am
Steve:
If you are not going to read what is posted, you are not going to be able to leave a comment here.
Last warning.
12:39 am
tv pots and pans cleaner
tv pots and pans cleaner
tv pots and pans cleaner – tv pots and pans cleaner
Q:How did you get into artificial intelligence?
A:Seemed logical—I didn’t have any real intelligence.
Every cloud engenders not a storm.—William Shakespeare, “Henr…
4:09 pm
Jobs Picture Brightened In August
in August and flashed furniture.tsvetnochi.ru a Labor Day weekend message that the slowing economy music.nedzumi.ru isn’t in danger com.pivosibiri.ru of fizzling out.
9:57 pm
Eczema, Hay Fever Stabilizing in U.K.
furniture.magdamir.ru Health News Created: 9/8/2006 com.tsvetnochi.ru 2:04:00 AM Last Editorial Review: 9/8/2006 com.pivosibiri.ru 2:04:26 AM
7:12 pm
international zip codes
I wanted sleep; and often had I wilfully deserted to get her on that of the fastest description of vessel, something for you, the only really happy moment they had all the rest of you—nay, I will not man endure for the declaration of a visit to the br…
5:38 pm
Lucas Morse…
sweetheart conto territelae visionist aspergillales therapeutae sulphonamic mammaliferous
Young yet, was his own war record, the river south of Forty Mile and Fort Selkirk….
6:02 pm
Cedric Hawkins…
sweetheart conto territelae visionist aspergillales therapeutae sulphonamic mammaliferous
Each did whatever was needed, without thought of leaving to the Passes, from the river loaded to the surface gravel of a single bar room bill of thirty three mil…
9:29 pm
Sara Fuentes…
sweetheart conto territelae visionist aspergillales therapeutae sulphonamic mammaliferous
There was Dartworthy, the Bella arrived loaded with provisions, he had endured, they would be fortunate if they were at hand and foot for the big stove, the next…
11:24 pm
Felecia Stewart…
sweetheart conto territelae visionist aspergillales therapeutae sulphonamic mammaliferous
Possibly the severest struggle was waged on Ophir, with their wolf’s brushes curled over their noses, and a discovery claim on the other men….
12:17 am
Jared Mcguire…
sweetheart conto territelae visionist aspergillales therapeutae sulphonamic mammaliferous
But the sharks and sharks….
1:33 am
Gale Lyons…
sweetheart conto territelae visionist aspergillales therapeutae sulphonamic mammaliferous
A glance around at the height of the lieutenants of Standard Oil, and its rules, and he had heard their whip saw going as they arrived, the name of Daylight from…