Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Choosing this particular excerpt reflects the usual selective thinking on this blog, but it does get one very important thing right: Saddam Hussein was indeed better than Moktada al-Sadr. Nonetheless, Moktada al-Sadr, and other similar leaders, will be the real outcome of America's half-trillion-dollar investment in Iraq. Another fundamental quote is this one from Totten's post:

“A lot of the people around here are Sadr supporters,” said Sergeant Lizanne. “But they’re also pro-coalition. I don’t really understand how that works.”

That's right, he doesn't really understand, and neither does the White House. Despite all of the talk about the US "winning", war backers are getting ever hazier about what exactly the US is winning. The ugly truth is that Moktada al-Sadr is the "victory" that the US is fighting for. Not only Sadr, but also other ferocious Shiite Islamists.

As other have said, it is impossible to "win" a war that is not in your interests. Sergeant Lizanne is awake enough to eventually realize this.

Posted by at August 15, 2007 07:11 AM

The ugly truth is that Moktada al-Sadr is the "victory" that the US is fighting for. Not only Sadr, but also other ferocious Shiite Islamists.

This is just your opinion. The "victory" the US is fighting for is a free country in the Middle-East that is self-sustaining and self-governed by its elected officials. That's my opinion. We have seen numerous signs of success in the recent months and we all anxiously await Petreus' report. Oh, but wait, he might say we're doing well, so we must give up before then!

Posted by Mac at August 15, 2007 07:32 AM

This is just your opinion.

No, it's the established truth as witnessed by men like Daniel E. Lizanne and Michael Totten.

The "victory" the US is fighting for is a free country in the Middle-East that is self-sustaining and self-governed by its elected officials.

That is just an opinion held by the people who back the war. Iraq probably will be self-governed by elected officials --- but they will be allies of Moktada al-Sadr.

We have seen numerous signs of success in the recent months and we all anxiously await Petreus' report.

Yes, we have seen some signs of success; unfortunately, Sadr and other Islamists have their name on that success. After all, Sadr brokered the nomination of Maliki as prime minister. The question is not whether the US can "succeed", the question is whether it's a victory that serves our interests. (The answer is no.)

Posted by at August 15, 2007 08:13 AM

> As other have said, it is impossible to "win" a war that is not in your interests.

One problem - it's possible to win a war that's not in your interests. It is bad to do so (that's what "not in your interests" means), but bad doesn't imply impossible.

However, let's ask the obvious question. August appears to believe that winning the war would not be in the US interests. Does he believe that losing would be in the US interests?

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 15, 2007 08:39 AM

One problem - it's possible to win a war that's not in your interests. It is bad to do so (that's what "not in your interests" means), but bad doesn't imply impossible.

All right, if you prefer that semantics, we "won" a long time ago and it's past time to go home. That was what Bush meant all along with the statement that "victory is still fragile". He just didn't like the "victory" that he achieved.

Does he believe that losing would be in the US interests?

It would be awful, but not as awful. Because, as time goes on they are only buying more anti-American "victory", and $100 billion per year isn't exactly cheap either.

Posted by at August 15, 2007 08:45 AM

No, it's the established truth as witnessed by men like Daniel E. Lizanne and Michael Totten.

Witnessed? It is their opinions on what the outcome will be. Since the outcome has not yet happened, how can it be a truth?

Victory in war is the defeat or surrender of the enemy. AQ is not defeated and they have not yet surrendered. Once they are defeated or surrender, we will have victory. We are not at war with Sadr, so there is nothing that makes him a bargaining chip for "victory."

Posted by Mac at August 15, 2007 10:21 AM

"The ugly truth is that Moktada al-Sadr is the "victory" that the US is fighting for. Not only Sadr, but also other ferocious Shiite Islamists."

This is true if we pull out anytime in the next 2 or 3 years. The only chance of preventing a Sunni Arab genocide when we leave is to stick it out for another 5 or 6 years (although troop levels could be much reduced during that time). There are plenty of examples of counter-insurgencies with successful outcomes (including our own counter-insurgency in the Philippines), but almost all of them have taken at least 10 years of military involvement. I will probably join the National Guard before next summer and am happy to do my part. However, I don't believe most in the US have to stomach for another 5 or 6 years. If that is the case, we should leave now and get the ethnic cleansing over with. The sooner the Sunnis are all dead or driven out of the country, the sooner their 'might' be peace in Iraq. If this sounds really horrible to you, then we are going to have to come up with some really creative (and possibly very un-pc) solutions to this problem.

Posted by Chris at August 15, 2007 12:16 PM

Also, a peacefull, democratic Iraq is in our best interests if it can be brought off. A prosperous, democratic Iraq will drive a wooden stake in the arguments of all Islamic Militants.

Thier fundamental argument and world view is as follows: "The reason the Islamic nations are backward econimicly, oppressed politically, and constantly defeated militarily is not because we haven't embrased Western ideals like democracy, it is because we are NOT ISLAMIC enough. If we can just embrace Islam to its fullest extent, we will prosper . . oh, and the ends justify the means" That is a simplified version that doesn't include US/Israel conspiracy theories and rantings against the Saudi Royal Family, but it is essentially true.

A prosperous, democratic, strong Iraq will completely underpin that world view, and will greatly benifit the Iraqi people as an extra bonus.

Posted by Chris at August 15, 2007 12:31 PM

Rand, I note that you skipped the first half of Totten's piece. These quotes are from the same link Rand posts above:

BAGHDAD – The American soldier sitting next to me flipped open his Zippo lighter and gloomily lit a cigarette. “Do you know why this base isn’t attacked by insurgents?” he said.
I assumed it was because his area of operations, in the Graya’at neighborhood of northern Baghdad out of Coalition Outpost War Eagle, had been cleared of insurgents. Many American military bases and outposts in Iraq are attacked by Al Qaeda terrorists and Mahdi Army militiamen with mortars and rockets. War Eagle was quiet and had not been bombarded for months.

“We aren’t being attacked because the Mahdi Army is in the next building,” he said. “They don’t want to hit their own people.”

American soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division shared the small outpost with Iraqi Army soldiers who lived, worked, and slept in the building next door.

“You mean the Iraqi Army unit here has been infiltrated?” I said.

and this

Master Sergeant Jeffrey K. Tyler met with me privately.
“It’s true,” he said. “Many of the Iraqi Army soldiers here are supporters of JAM.” JAM is military shorthand for Jaysh al Mahdi, or Moqtada al Sadr’s radical Shia Mahdi Army militia. “They aren’t in JAM cells necessarily, but they are sympathizers. They may let JAM guys through checkpoints, for example. They aren’t out kidnapping Sunnis or anything like that. They are sympathizers, not direct actors. Almost all the Iraqi Army soldiers here are Shias.”

“Is their presence here the reason we aren’t getting mortared?” I said. “Because the Mahdi Army doesn’t want to blow up their own people?”

“We think that’s probably so,” he said and nodded with confidence.

I didn’t hear that in the briefing when I first got there.

and this

I asked several people what might happen if Moqtada al Sadr was pulled out of the Iranian orbit and flipped to the American side, as the tribal leaders of Anbar Province have been brought around to the American side. Sadr would still live in fear of Saddam Hussein if the Americans never arrived and destroyed the old government. A peaceful coexistence of some sort is at least theoretically possible if he can be peeled away from Iran with money and promises.
“I think the reason the U.S. hasn’t killed Sadr yet is because they are trying to flip him to their side,” said Hammer. “All it takes is money. It’s all about money money money for these guys. He has only 16 percent support among the Shia. I am a Shia. I know lots of Shia in Sadr City who hate and fear him, but he has lots of power and influence.”

“If we flip Sadr Iraq might very well reach a tipping point,” Master Sergeant Tyler told me. “The war might be all but technically over. But there would be some blowback from the Sunni side at first.”

Sounds great, but it begs the question: is a tactical alliance with Moqtada al Sadr even desirable?

Cindy Sheehan's son was killed during the operation to arrest Sadr, and soon thereafter we decided "Oh, never mind"

Now Totten reports we are trying to flip Sadr to our side.

Very, very interesting . . .

Posted by Bill White at August 15, 2007 01:50 PM

I note that you skipped the first half of Totten's piece.

And I note that you accuse me of doing things I didn't. I "skipped" nothing. I provided a link to the piece, and an excerpt from it. It is not my job to provide excerpts that Bill White finds interesting. I'm sorry I didn't provide the excerpt you want me to. If you wanted a different excerpt, here's your money back...

Go get your own blog.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2007 01:59 PM

Totten reports that we are looking to make Sadr our ally after Rand links to Totten to say we need to take Sadr out. Hardly a thread-jack.

Anyway, I think we should have killed/captured Sadr at Najaf. But we didn't.

I also believe that if we are to have the type of Iraq Mac envisions (a good vision, btw) we will need to clean out Sadr City. But then the Shi-ite will really hit the fan and with 2008 elections coming up I predict NO WAY will we take on the Mahdi Army.

Since its all kabuki.

Oh and new reports suggest General Petreaus may call for a reduction to 70,000 troops by next summer.

Heh, just in time for the election. Funny, that.

Posted by Bill White at August 15, 2007 02:27 PM

Oh and new reports suggest General Petreaus may call for a reduction to 70,000 troops by next summer.

No, Bill. New reports suggest that Petraeus is planning redeployment from pacified areas to areas that still require pacification. Not a draw down.

Heh, just in time for the election. Funny, that.

Heh, a misinterpretation of the news based on your partisan biases. Funny, that.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2007 02:40 PM

I won't go into the war / no war argument, that's been done to death here and elsewhere. What amazes me about those who are wanting to say that the war is lost and never could be won, is their belief in guys like Daniel E. Lizanne, who are in a very small minority of disgruntled service members. If the majority of service members who have been there weren't behind the war, we'd have guys coming home and demonstrating alongside Mother Sheehan, Sean Penn and the usual anti-war howlers.

The ant-war or stop the war crowd believe a guy's story who openly admitted he had intel from the intel guys, and he passed it on to the media. As a veteran here's what we used to call that, a court martial offense. I hope it happens. The Sgt. gave up his right to talk to the press openly when he stuck his weeny skinner in the air and took that oath.

Contrary to popular belief, the 1st Amendment is not part of the UCMJ.

Lizanne says intel is hard to come by. That could be, maybe it's because the S-2 guys know from prior experience he won't keep his effing mouth shut. I saw that happen during my service in the Great Cold War. There were simply guys who could not be told about current manning levels, armament or ships movement. Sgt. Daniel E. Lizanne sounds like the type.

Sorry, I don't take the word of service members who have admitted to giving out military secrets. I'll take the word of the majority of our guys and gals who serve and keep secrets and say we are making a difference. Which, once again might I add, includes my sons and their friends.

I know neither Totten nor Lizanne, so they go to the bottom of my believability chart.

I hope Sgt. Lizanne doesn't need his platoon to back him up any time soon. Bonds of trust are hard to rebuild, doubly so in the military as a whole and maybe impossible in a combat scenario.

Posted by Steve at August 15, 2007 04:01 PM

know neither Totten nor Lizanne, so they go to the bottom of my believability chart.

Tut Tut, that's not going to please someone, given how often Totten appears here ;-).

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at August 15, 2007 05:47 PM

This is true [that Sadr is the American "victory"] if we pull out anytime in the next 2 or 3 years.

Actually, it's true if we pull out anytime in the next 20 or 30 years. Radical Shiite empowerment is a fundamental part of Iraqi politics. The Sunni-Shiite civil war is going to grind on in that country no matter what the US does.

Witnessed? It is their opinions on what the outcome will be.

No, Sadr's rise to power is neither the preference nor the opinion of either Lizanne or Totten, nor a prediction of any kind of outcome. It is what they saw right then and there. As Michael Totten's camera showed, there are huge posters of Sadr all over the place.

Posted by at August 15, 2007 09:36 PM

Witnessed? It is their opinions on what the outcome will be.

Directly from the article Rand linked to. The very first three paragraphs of "Michael Totten has a story from Baghdad"

BAGHDAD – The American soldier sitting next to me flipped open his Zippo lighter and gloomily lit a cigarette. “Do you know why this base isn’t attacked by insurgents?” he said.
I assumed it was because his area of operations, in the Graya’at neighborhood of northern Baghdad out of Coalition Outpost War Eagle, had been cleared of insurgents. Many American military bases and outposts in Iraq are attacked by Al Qaeda terrorists and Mahdi Army militiamen with mortars and rockets. War Eagle was quiet and had not been bombarded for months.

“We aren’t being attacked because the Mahdi Army is in the next building,” he said. “They don’t want to hit their own people.”

I thought we were supposed to read the links.

Posted by Bill White at August 16, 2007 07:16 AM

Bill, do you think, God Forbid, that Rand didn't read the link?

The crime he often accuses his readers of doing? Going straight into comment mode?

Haha, nice slip there Rand.

Posted by Offside at August 16, 2007 07:23 AM

Of course I read the link. On what basis would any rational person conclude that I didn't?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 16, 2007 07:29 AM

I suggest Offside not only read the original post and any linked material, but also read all the comments before he does something idiotic. I even recommend the read twice, post once approach.

Posted by Leland at August 16, 2007 05:05 PM

Post a comment