Navigate / search

Home > Blog > troop surge

>United Nations’ Dec. 08 Human Rights Report On Iraq

>In the beginning of December 2008 the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) released its human rights report covering the first six months of the year. The paper documented the continuing violence and casualties in Iraq, as well as the situation of women, minorities, the press, the internally displaced, and detainees. The U.N found that there are still mass casualty attacks in Iraq, although not at previous levels. Women are also targeted, especially in Kurdistan in honor killings, minorities continue to be threatened, the press, especially in Kurdistan continues to be limited, and the situation of the country’s internally displaced is deteriorating. Iraq’s prisons are also overcrowded with reports of torture and abuse, as the legal system is overloaded. Overall, while security is improving in Iraq, the U.N. agency noted that there are still widespread abuses and human rights concerns.

Violence

Violence is down, but not over in Iraq. On January 23, 2008, for example, there was a bombing in Mosul that killed 15 and wounded 132. There continue to be attacks on civilians, security forces, government officials, politicians, educators, professionals, members of the judicial system, and the press. The U.N. no longer reports on total casualties for the country however. In its January 2007 Human Rights report, the U.N. recorded almost three times as many deaths as the Iraqi government. Baghdad then stopped issuing official death counts claiming that it couldn’t accurately keep track of deaths, but also to conceal the increasing killings due to the sectarian war that was taking off at that time.

Instead of total deaths, the report covered mass casualty attacks. The U.N. found that these declined from January to June 2008. There were eight such attacks in January compared to only 4 in June, while the number of killed and wounded went down from 330 to 206 for those same months. From March to June however, the total number of casualties actually increased going from 161 to 206.

Large Scale Attacks
January – 8 attacks resulting in 330 casualties
February – 6 attacks resulting in 253 casualties
March – 5 attacks resulting in 161 casualties
April – 6 attacks resulting in 177 casualties
May – 3 attacks resulting in 205 casualties
June – 4 attacks resulting in 206 casualties

Government employees, religious figures, activists, judges, lawyers, professionals, and academics all continue to be targeted. Attacks on security forces not only resulted in they being wounded and killed, but civilians as well. There were 11 such incidents resulting in 274 civilian casualties from January to June 2008. There were 22 attacks on government officials, politicians and civil servants. In June for example, two members of the Sadr City Council were killed and ten wounded in a bombing of the council building. Kidnappings are also common, especially in Diyala province. Large numbers of unidentified bodies were found in Diyala, Ninewa, Anbar, Qadisiyah, but mainly in Baghdad. Mass graves have also been found, particularly after insurgents have been cleared from an area.

Deaths due to foreigners were also a concern. There were two high-profile cases of Iraqis being wounded and killed by security contractors in the first six months of 2008. In January 5 a car fleeing an attack hit five students, aged 6-10. In February Blackwater contractors trying to clear traffic killed one civilian. There were also six Coalition air strikes that resulted in civilian casualties.

Women

The U.N. received many complaints about the rights of women being limited by conservatives in their neighborhoods, in the government, and in schools. The Major concern was in Kurdistan where there were reports of honor killings. A women’s group in Irbil found 145 cases of violence against women in just the first two months of 2008. In May, the Kurdistan Regional Government Prime Minister held a meeting on violence against women promising action on this issue. England’s Guardian also just reported on honor killings in Basra where authorities were turning a blind eye.

Minorities

Iraq’s minorities, consisting of Shabaks, Yezidis, Christians, and Turkomen in Ninewa and Tamim continue to worry the U.N. There were 17 reported kidnappings of Christians in those two provinces, along with nine attacks on Shabaks, mostly in Mosul, 2 Turkomen leaders were killed in that city in June, and Sabean Mandeans were threatened.

Press

Journalists continue to be attacked in Iraq. The Kurds were singled out in the report for their restrictions on the press as well. Many reporters and editors have been arrested in Kurdistan, with the Committee to Protect Journalists issuing a report in May calling for the end of their persecution. The KRG claims that they are only going after those that are guilty of libel and lack professionalism, but UNAMI doubts these claims. The results have been that many papers are intimidated by the regional government, and practice self-censorship.

Internally Displaced

The U.N. counts 2.8 million internally displaced Iraqis. 1.2 million were forced out of their homes before 2006, and 1.6 million afterwards. Displacement has slowed in 2008, and over 100,000 Iraqis have returned to their homes since 2007. There were new displacements in the Dora, Jamia, Sulaik, Adhamiya and Karkh districts of Baghdad however. The U.N. is also concerned about the fact that eleven of Iraq’s eighteen provinces have restricted the movement of refugees into their areas. Overall, the internally displaced suffer from a lack of services and jobs, resulting in deteriorating living conditions.

Prisons

The plight of Iraqi detainees was a major concern. At the end of June 2008 there were a total of 50,595 prisoners. The highest number was in March when there were 56,320.

Detainees – 2008
January: 23,800 held by Coalition, 26,676 held by Iraq, TOTAL: 50,476
February: 23,862 held by Coalition, 26,854 held by Iraq, TOTAL: 50,791
March: 23,862 held by Coalition, 32,458 held by Iraq, TOTAL: 56,320
April: 23,862 held by Coalition, 28,283 held by Iraq, TOTAL: 52,145
May: 23,229 held by Coalition, 28,028 held by Iraq, TOTAL: 51,257
June: 23,229 held by Coalition, 27,366 held by Iraq, TOTAL: 50,595

The jump in numbers in March coincided with the security operation in Basra

These numbers revealed two things. First, the February 2008 Amnesty Law has had no real affect on prisoners. Most of those affected by the act were actually people on wanted lists or on bail with only 2,000 detainees and convicts let go. Second, the U.S. setup a new program in its prison facilities during the Surge, aimed at increasing the number of those released. They claimed that they were discharging more prisoners than taking in new ones, but for the first six months of 2008 there as no real change in Iraqis held by the Americans. A May 19, 2008 report by the USA Today quoted U.S. military officials who said that the number of detainees they were holding dropped from 26,000 in 2007 to around 22,000 in May. UNAMI’s numbers show only a slight decline from 23,800 in January 2008 to 23,229 in May, only a 571 decrease. This brings into question the U.S. claims of successful rehabilitation and increased releases of Iraqis.

The major problem with the U.S. and Iraqi systems has been overcrowding and a lack of capacity by Iraq’s courts. Most prisoners are held for months, sometimes years, before they are ever charged, receive legal aid, or go before a judge. The courts simply cannot handle the number of prisoners. The detainees are therefore overcrowded with horrible conditions. Reports of abuse and torture are also common. Kurdistan is no better than the rest of Iraq. There are reports of secret detention facilities there, and the Kurdish Regional Government often moves prisoners when U.N. officials come to inspect sites.

Recommendations

The United Nations Mission had several recommendations for the Iraqi government. First, the Health Ministry needs to release official numbers of casualties in Iraq. Reports today are based upon leaks from various ministries and officials or the U.S. military. The government also has to protect vulnerable groups like minorities and the displaced, and investigate attacks on women. The legal system needs to deal with the large number of detainees, who are usually held without ever being processed, and address torture. That would begin to alleviate some of the problems in the overcrowded detention facilities. The U.N. also wants Iraq’s parliament to pass a human rights law to give legal standing to protecting against some of these abuses.

SOURCES

Babylon & Beyond Blog, “IRAQ: U.N.’s Iraq report still missing casualty count,” Los Angeles Times, 12/3/08

Michaels, Jim, “Military retools detainee releases,” USA Today, 5/19/08

Reilly, Corinne, “As clock ticks, U.S. letting thousands of Iraqi prisoners go,” McClatchy Newspapers, 10/27/08

UN Assistance Mission for Iraq, “Human Rights Report 1 January – 30 June 2008,” United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq

>Headlines 09/08-09/16

>

New York Times
September 16, 2008

The New York Times
Wednesday September 15, 2008
“Inside the new Green Zone”
Andy Arkell

From inside Iraq, Andy Arkell observes that in Baghdad there is a transition in checkpoint supervision from International military to Iraqi security personnel. Arkell notes that the interesting trend of Iraqi soldiers tightening checkpoint security denotes a strengthening of Iraqi control and confidence.

Weekend Edition Saturday
National Public Radio
September 13, 2008
“Evaluating The Surge In Iraq”

“I would characterize the surge as necessary but insufficient to bring about the violence reduction that we’ve seen.” Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations talks with host Scott Simon about elements that made the military surge in Iraq effective, and about other key factors that reduced violence.

Morning Edition
National Public Radio
September 12, 2008
“Iraq Puts Sunni Paramilitary Groups To Work”

After strong pressure from the U.S. military, the Iraqi government has agreed to employ the so-called Awakening Councils. These are largely Sunni paramilitary groups who turned against al-Qaida and allied themselves with U.S. forces. But the Awakening membership mistrusts the Iraqi government. Lourdes Garcia-Navarro reports from Baghdad.

The New York Times
September 8, 2008
“Should We Stay or Should We Go?”
Stephen Farrell

Stephen Farrell hits the streets of Baghdad to ask the Iraqi people what they think about an American troop withdrawal. Farrell elaborates on three frequently expressed opinions he encounters during his conversations.

Photo Caption #1: Gen. David H. Petraeus, seated, reacted Tuesday to a standing ovation in Baghdad. Max Becherer for The New York Times

Photo Caption #2: An Iraqi boy watches as American soldiers secure the scene in the aftermath of a car bomb that detonated near an American Army checkpoint. Moises Saman for The New York Times

>Brookings Institute: One Year Later

>My name is Michael Gaubinger and I am working at the Education for Peace in Iraq Center for the summer of 2008. I will be entering my junior year at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst in the fall and am studying political science.

On Friday, June 13, the Brookings Institute hosted Senior Fellows Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack for a discussion of their recent visit to Iraq. The discussion was called “Iraq: One Year Later.” The fact-finding trip was sponsored by the Department of Defense and, while on the trip, they met with American and British soldiers, Iraqi government officials, and other Iraqis. They were unable to meet with very many Iraqi civilians, so their report is not an accurate gauge of the pulse on the street. The discussion began with a brief lecture by each individual about his impressions of the current situation in Iraq. Both men highlighted the improvement in security. O’Hanlon commented that, “This has been the spring of the beginning of the blossoming of the Iraq security forces.” Did the surge work? O’Hanlon says: “Since 2007, Iraq has seen an eighty percent reduction in violence against citizens as measured by the United States military, the Iraqi government, and even some independent sources.” He also stressed the increasing sense of control by the Iraqi government. Great challenges still exist, but the trend-line is positive. Pollack also noted that Iraqi security forces have emerged as a factor for the first time and are now contributing to the coalition effort. There are now 560,000 Iraqi Security Forces and that number is growing by 100,000 troops per year. The training system is working and as many as ten Iraqi brigades are combat ready now. The first wave of problems have been identified and confronted. Now, the United States faces the task of solving the old problems while shifting its focus to the second wave of problems. While the military and police are growing strong, Iraq’s civilian institutions remain weak. The progress of Iraqi regiments and security forces is a large contributor to the reduction in civilian violence in Iraq. For the nearly five-million Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons, a sense of security and safety is a crucial step towards helping these individuals return home.

O’Hanlon and Pollack were asked about the potential for a decrease in American involvement in Iraq through the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region. Both agreed that an immediate withdrawal would be dangerous and set back the progress that they described. Furthermore, any reduction in current troop levels must be based on progress and not set to a calendar. O’Hanlon stressed that improvements in the mind-set of the Iraqi government were, in part due to the pressure applied by the Democratic leadership which reinforced the notion that American presence in Iraq must not be taken for granted by the Iraqi government. To ensure continued support from the United States, the Iraqi government must match the effort of the United States. According to Pollack, the general election in Iraq in 2009 represents a key moment politically within Iraq which could either cement and solidify the improvements or reverse them. Therefore, America withdrawal of troops before the elections could have dire consequences.

Planting the seeds of sustainable economic development is one of the first steps in redressing the humanitarian needs of Iraq. O’Hanlon and Pollack were asked about the current state of the Iraqi economy, specifically at the individual level. Oil exports are the backbone of Iraq’s economy, accounting for 98% of its revenue. Although oil exports are high and profitable for Iraq, they painted a bleak picture of life for the average citizen. Healthcare is poor and infant mortality rates are rising. There is not enough potable water. Unemployment is high and, among Iraqi civilians, there are no optimistic expectations of improvement. Due to the poor state of the economy, the return of refugees and internally displaced persons is a greater concern. Pollack suggested that an Iraqi government initiated housing project would help the economy by providing jobs and creating houses for some of the millions of displaced citizens.

A core component of the security improvement is sectarian separation. So far, approximately one-half of the sectarian separation has occurred, but there are some important concerns about the long-term sustainability of the recent improvements, which are due to forced ethnic division. What will happen when the walls are taken down? They were also asked about the current debate over the status of forces agreement. I will discuss this further in an upcoming blog. The final question directly addressed the willingness of the United States to take in refugees from Iraq. In 2008, the United States government promised to take in 7,000 refugees from Iraq, while Sweden is expected to take in 20,000 displaced persons. Pollack credited the low number of Iraqi refugees in America to fears by the Department of Homeland Security that the United States would be letting potential terrorists into the country; fears he categorized as foolish and repugnant.

O’Hanlon and Pollack both agree that Iraq faces many great challenges and unforeseen obstacles, but that the nation shows signs of improvement. Iraqi security forces are standing up as we transition to a plan where Iraqi forces are in the lead with American support, rather than the United States playing the lead role.

>Is the Surge Working?

>

In the media, that question is being asked a lot these days, and for those of you planning to break bread with extended family this week, it will likely be among the topics of conversation.

So how can I resist but to throw in my two cents. Consider this post a Ground Truth Guide to one of the most political questions of our day.

First, let’s recognize the question for what it is: a partisan test of loyalties. Answer “no” and you must be marching with those antiwar Democrats. Answer “yes” and you’re a “pro-war Bush supporter.”

Second, the question invites the answerer to snub either (1) the courageous efforts of 175,000 U.S. servicemen and women who are risking their lives in Iraq right now, while we’re all enjoying our Tofurkies, OR (2) the legitimate concerns of millions of Americans, Iraqis, and people around the globe — civilian and military — who recognize the limits of what a foreign military can achieve in Iraq.

Third, it’s the wrong question asked by the wrong people at the wrong time. For starters, it frames Iraq as an all-American domestic political problem with only one possible solution. The Problem: What to do about this thing called I-rak? Solution: send more of our G.I.s! Problem: Darfur? Solution: Send in our boys. Problem: global warming? Solution: da boyz!

Are you seeing the problem? Ending conflict and suffering in Iraq presents a military, diplomatic, humanitarian, economic, and — most importantly — peacebuilding challenge. Is the surge working? That question is not about addressing the world’s largest population movement and humanitarian crisis today. The UNHCR estimates 4.5 million people have been displaced. Nor is it about the country’s 30-50% unemployment rate, which most experts point to as a major contributing factor of Iraq’s instability. Reducing all of America’s policy options to an either-or question that suggests only military solutions (surge vs. withdrawal) is just plain silly talk. Most Americans are already wising up to that, but it seems our politicians are a little slower.

Now that we have liberated ourselves from that ridiculous question and the obsession of small-minded media outlets to put all of us into neat little ticky tack boxes, it’s time to consider what’s really happening on-the-ground in Iraq.

Without question, there has been a remarkable improvement in security. Here’s an excerpt from today’s report by New York Times Baghdad correspondents Damien Cave and Alissa Rubin:

The security improvements in most neighborhoods are real. Days now pass without a car bomb, after a high of 44 in the city in February. The number of bodies appearing on Baghdad’s streets has plummeted to about 5 a day, from as many as 35 eight months ago, and suicide bombings across Iraq fell to 16 in October, half the number of last summer and down sharply from a recent peak of 59 in March, the American military says.

As a result, for the first time in nearly two years, people are moving with freedom around much of this city. In more than 50 interviews across Baghdad, it became clear that while there were still no-go zones, more Iraqis now drive between Sunni and Shiite areas for work, shopping or school, a few even after dark. In the most stable neighborhoods of Baghdad, some secular women are also dressing as they wish. Wedding bands are playing in public again, and at a handful of once shuttered liquor stores customers now line up outside in a collective rebuke to religious vigilantes from the Shiite Mahdi Army. [more]

And on NPR’s Morning Edition, Jamie Tarabay reports: “Nine months after the start of the U.S. troop surge in Baghdad, signs of life are slowly returning to some neighborhoods of the Iraqi capital. In the Sunni enclave of Amriya on the west side of the city, shops are reopening, and the economy is picking up.”

Iraqi bloggers, military bloggers, and a U.S. Army surgeon in West Baghdad who I’ve been talking with by phone confirm these recently reported trends.

But don’t blame it all on the surge. There are other important factors contributing to these recent improvements. For example, there’s the popular backlash against the terror campaign of al-Qaeda (ALQ) and other extremists and the formation of anti-ALQ coalitions among tribal leaders. Those trends began in 2006 and gathered momentum in early 2007. Here’s what I wrote about the trend last May:

The tribal leaders formed the Anbar Salvation Council in fall 2006 to fight al-Qa’ida. Also called the Anbar Awakening, the coalition began with dozens of tribes and now boasts more than 40 tribes or sub-tribes from Anbar. The Sunni Arab leader of the movement, Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi, lost his father and three brothers to al-Qaida assassins. AP quotes al-Rishawi as saying insurgents were “killing innocent people, anyone suspected of opposing them. They brought us nothing but destruction and we finally said, enough is enough.”

Early this year, as the council gained new tribal members and strength, cooperation with U.S. forces began to improve especially in and around Ramadi, Anbar’s provincial council. Last month I talked with a Marine fellow in Senator Reed’s office who served in Ramadi two years ago. He stays in touch with fellow Marines, including men serving there right now who confirm a remarkable turnaround in Ramadi.

Other related trends include: the organizing of neighborhood militias, the spread of local cease-fires, the growing capabilities of some of Iraq’s security forces and commanders, and the shift to a counterinsurgency strategy that emphasizes protecting and securing the local population. In addition, Gen. Petreaus and other commanders have focused on building alliances at the local level with anyone who can help restore order.

The real question is less about whether or not we’re seeing improvements in security. We are, and that’s good news. But can these recent improvements be sustained? And will the downward trend in violence continue? After all, Iraq’s rate of conflict-related deaths remains among the highest in the world.

Our friend Abu Aardvark and other experts are not so sure. They caution that, despite recent improvements in security, current military tactics carry the risk of moving Iraq “towards a warlord state, along a Basra model, with power devolved to local militias, gangs, tribes, and power-brokers, with a purely nominal central state.”

Abu Aardvark’s caution, if not pessimism, got strong military back-up in last Thursday’s Washington Post. In his front page article “Iraqis Wasting an Opportunity, U.S. Officers Say“, Tom Ricks writes:

Senior military commanders here now portray the intransigence of Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government as the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, rather than al-Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed militias.

In more than a dozen interviews, U.S. military officials expressed growing concern over the Iraqi government’s failure to capitalize on sharp declines in attacks against U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians. A window of opportunity has opened for the government to reach out to its former foes, said Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of day-to-day U.S. military operations in Iraq, but “it’s unclear how long that window is going to be open.”

…all the U.S. military officials interviewed said their most pressing concern is that Sunnis will sour if the Iraqi government doesn’t begin to reciprocate their peace overtures. “The Sunnis have shown great patience,” said Campbell. “You don’t want the Sunnis that are working with you . . . to go back to the dark side.”

The Army officer who requested anonymity said that if the Iraqi government doesn’t reach out, then for former Sunni insurgents “it’s game on — they’re back to attacking again.”

The year-long progress in fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq could carry a downside. Maj. Mark Brady, who works on reconciliation issues, noted that a Sunni leader told him: “As soon as we finish with al-Qaeda, we start with the Shiite extremists.” Talk like that is sharply discouraged, Brady noted as he walked across the dusty ground of Camp Liberty, on the western fringes of Baghdad. [more]

In short, despite improvements in security, the challenge of building an enduring peace remains.

So that’s the Ground Truth Guide to the BIG political question of this year’s Thanksgiving. I’ll leave it to our readers and future blogs to generate some more intelligent questions that the media ought to be asking and elected officials and candidates ought to be answering.

Photo caption: Women walk through Baghdad’s Zawra Park. Joao Silva for The New York Times.

Blogger alert: Abu Aardvark recently hosted an interesting mano y mano debate between Georgetown scholar Colin Kahl and Center for American Progress policy analyst Brian Katulis.

>The Silver Lining of the Supplemental

>

Yesterday, Congressional Democrats ended a nearly 5-month cold war with the Bush Administration by approving supplemental Iraq war funding absent a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal.

The anti-war netroots at Daily Kos and practically everywhere else on the internet are now in a tizzy, declaring “if the supplemental bill passes, it most probably means that Mister Bush has all the money he needs to continue this bloody disaster for the next 16 months.” Even the New York Times is riddled with language about how the Dems “relented” and made a “wrenching reversal.”

But as Erik noted in his recent blog, the media has a curious affinity for black-and-white half-truths, and for declaring “game over” in the third inning. Congressional leaders will have other, better opportunities to duke it out on a number of funding bills in coming months, including Department of Defense Appropriations. Furthermore, there’s more to this emergency spending bill than the timetable issue.

For starters, this is the first bill that begins to address the urgent needs of the fastest growing refugee and internally displaced populations in the world. It provides funding for lifesaving humanitarian assistance and protection to help those displaced by the conflicts in Iraq and Darfur. Secondly, it restores funding for development NGOs that have successfully partnered with local Iraqi leaders to help them rebuild their war-torn communities. Third, the bill provides some of the assistance that Iraq desperately needs for an economic and political solution — something that neither troop surges nor withdrawals are likely to produce alone.

No, we didn’t get as much as we would have liked, but EPIC and our Iraq Peace and Development Working Group (IPDWG) allies lobbied hard and won $85 million above the President’s request for Iraqi refugee/IDP assistance and restored $50 million of funding for USAID’s Community Action Program (CAP) and the Marla Ruzicka War Victims Fund.

Even if you’re among the “support our troops, bring them home” crowd and you buy the Daily Kos’ 16-month-bloodbath prophecy, you ought to know this funding is crucial for protecting our troops. As long as they’re over there, the best way we can help them is by stabilizing Iraq through political, civil and economic projects. Employed Iraqis with ownership of and interest in community projects, such as those funded by CAP and highlighted in our “Overlooked Successes” conference, aren’t strapping bombs to their chests and going after Americans. And what you may not have heard is that these moderates do have an influence on those who are causing trouble – popular support is key to movements such as Moqtada al-Sadr’s.

The sooner we get moving on economic, political and civil solutions, the less justification this Administration will have for maintaining or augmenting troop levels.

Also present in the approved bill are benchmarks. We’re planning a series of blog entries here giving you details on each one, but for now suffice it to say we’ve been calling for benchmarks for years. Of course, benchmarks on U.S. progress rather than focusing entirely on the Iraqi side of the equation would have been nice. But you know how it is in Washington – baby steps, baby steps.

The bottom line is that U.S. troop levels are just one part, one question in the debate over Iraq’s future. The media needs to be careful not to over-focus on that question at the expense of the needs of the Iraqi people.

>Suicide Bombings shift from Anbar to Diyala

>On May Day, I came across

With the help of EPIC Spring intern Dominique Arvanitis, I tracked down the details of the “suicide bombings” that Friedman listed, to see where al-Qaeda and its allies have been focusing their attacks lately. All of the bombings Friedman writes about occurred from April 18th to April 30th, although the wave of car bombings in Baghdad on April 18th that killed 191 people and wounded 250 may not qualify as “suicide attacks.” While al-Qaeda may have been involved, it may have not required foreign fighters or homegrown militants committing suicide.

So here are details of the only 6 confirmed suicide attacks that occurred during the last 13 days of April:

On April 23rd in Diyala Province, a pair of suicide bombers detonated explosive-packed dump trucks outside a U.S. patrol base, killing nine U.S. soldiers.

On April 25th, not far away in Balad Ruz, a suicide bomber killed four Iraqi policemen.

On April 26th in the Diyala town of Khalis, a suicide car bomber rammed an Iraqi checkpoint killing nine soldiers. On the same day in Zamar, a town just west of Mosul, two suicide car bombers attacked the local headquarters of the Kurdistan Democratic Party killing five people.

On April 30th, Khalis suffered a second attack. A suicide bomber walked into a crowded funeral tent and blew himself up, killing 32 mourners. The funeral was for the son of a Shi’ite family who had been killed by gunmen.

That’s 6 suicide attacks carried out by 7 suicide bombers, killing 59 people in one week and a day. All but one of those suicide attacks took place in Diyala province.

So why are there noticeably less suicide bombings taking place in Baghdad or in the predominantly Sunni Arab cities of Fallujah, Ramadi, and Samarra? Last year, there were plenty of suicide bombings throughout the country. Why are most occurring in Diyala now?

It can be partly explained by the increasing difficultly al-Qaeda is finding in trying to operate in much of Baghdad and Anbar provinces. Following President Bush’s announcement in January of a “military surge,” the recruitment of foreign fighters picked up in response. The New York Times reports: “…Iraqi intelligence had concluded that Al Qaeda was in effect surging at the same time in Iraq to counteract the American program, damping any immediate gains.”

So what’s a terrorist organization got to do with so many would-be suicide bombers including the variety from Zarqa, Jordan (see Emily’s May 10th post Radicalization Spillover). The result has been increasingly ruthless and abhorrent bombings of innocent civilians, some even involving the use of trucks filled with chlorine gas.

That has led to a backlash particularly in Anbar province. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius writes:

In al-Qaeda’s stronghold of Anbar province, tribal leaders have begun allying with American forces against the Sunni terrorists. According to Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, who commands day-to-day military operations in Iraq, there were just 60 attacks in Anbar last week, compared with 480 per week a year ago.

The tribal leaders formed the Anbar Salvation Council in fall 2006 to fight al-Qa’ida. Also called the Anbar Awakening, the coalition began with dozens of tribes and now boasts more than 40 tribes or sub-tribes from Anbar. The Sunni Arab leader of the movement, Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi, lost his father and three brothers to al-Qaida assassins. AP quotes al-Rishawi as saying insurgents were “killing innocent people, anyone suspected of opposing them. They brought us nothing but destruction and we finally said, enough is enough.”

Early this year, as the council gained new tribal members and strength, cooperation with U.S. forces began to improve especially in and around Ramadi, Anbar’s provincial council. Last month I talked with a Marine fellow in Senator Reed’s office who served in Ramadi two years ago. He stays in touch with fellow Marines, including men serving there right now who confirm a remarkable turnaround in Ramadi.

>Examining the Troop Surge

>Yesterday the Heritage Foundation hosted a discussion on the way forward in Iraq. The panel consisted of Kenneth Pollack (Brookings Institution), Frederick Kagan (American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research), and Anthony Cordesman (Center for Strategic and International Studies). The main subject of discussion was whether or not the troop surge would succeed in securing Iraq. Though their opinions differed on this matter, each speaker agreed, that either way, this surge is the last possible option for success in Iraq.

Kagan was the most enthusiastic about the success of the surge. He considered the cooperation of the Maliki government and news that insurgent groups have gone underground as signs that the surge is already working in some parts of the country. Pollack used the later example, instead, to highlight the uncertainty of the outcome of the surge. He explained that it’s too soon to know if insurgent groups will wait out the surge, or if they will loose strength and diminish.

Pollack went on to argue that it is difficult to determine whether or not it is too late in the conflict for the surge to work, explaining that we should have adopted this strategy much earlier. Kagan disagreed and explained that the Maliki government and the Iraqi army were not capable for this type of surge in 2004 and 2005, but that they are now. Cordesman, on the other hand, believes that the government, the army, and the police are still not capable enough to handle the military surge.

There were three themes that all of the speakers agreed on: the need for bolstering the civilian side of the surge, the importance of the political, economic, and social aspects of a civilian follow through, and the responsibility the U.S. has to not abandon Iraq regardless of the outcome of the surge. Pollack explained that:

“The replacement of Donald Rumsfeld with Robert Gates, as well as the succession of Lt. General David Petraeus to the command of all Coalition forces in Iraq does offer some hope…However, as is frequently intoned but rarely acted upon, the military cannot possibly win the struggle for Iraq by itself. Even if Gates and Petraeus deliver a brilliant performance (and they may well), without a commensurate civilian effort to deliver the political, economic, diplomatic, and social components, the plan will still fail.”

Cordesman argued it would be irresponsible for the U.S. to walk out of Iraq without doing everything possible to secure the country, and prevent conflict from spilling over into neighboring countries. The panel agreed that it was not realistic, or responsible for lawmakers to urge for a withdrawal if success is the objective, from both a political and military standpoint. Cordesman closed by stating that “the price of success is 2015, not 2008, and that it is not a matter of containment, but constant damage control.”

>$20 Billion More? Ok, but Still Ignores Needs of Iraqis

>The Wall Street Journal reports on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s proposed new spending bill.

Here is the breakdown:

• $4.0 billion defense spending, including $1 billion for military operations in Afghanistan
• $3.1 billion relocation of U.S. troops from overseas bases being closed in Europe and Asia
• $2.5 billion homeland security
• $1.7 billion veteran’s healthcare
• $8.7 billion domestic spending including farm disaster aid, and Gulf Coast recovery

In all, she hopes to add $20 billion to the administration’s $99.6 billion 2007 supplemental request. The bill also sets a timeline for withdrawal. From the press release:

To pressure Iraqi leaders to make the compromises necessary to end the chaos that has resulted from their lack of performance to date, the proposal establishes a timeline for ending U.S. participation in Iraq’s civil war.

• By July 1st, 2007 the President must certify that Iraq is making meaningful and substantial progress in meeting political and military benchmarks including a militia disarmament program and a plan that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqi factions. If he does not certify – troops must begin immediate redeployment and U.S. troop involvement in the Iraq civil war must be completed by December 2007 (180 days).

• By October 1st, the President must certify that Iraqis have achieved key benchmarks. If he does not make the second certification, troops must begin immediate redeployment to be completed by March of 2008 (180 days).

• Even if he makes both certifications, the Administration must start redeploying the U.S. Military from Iraq by March 1, 2008, and complete the redeployment by August of 2008 (180 days).

The bill also prevents the President from initiating offensive military operations against Iran without the approval of the Congress.

I certainly can’t fault Pelosi for what she has included in this bill: it is apparent to all that more attention needs to be paid to Afghanistan, U.S. veterans must be taken care of properly, and current U.S. soldiers should certainly receive all the proper equipment they need.

As the press release states, “This bill meets every possible obligation for our troops…” But what about the Iraqis? The misguided policies of the U.S. have been instrumental in creating the current crises in Iraq including a 60% unemployment rate, and a displaced population of 3.7 million. Pelosi suggests an addition of $20 billion to an already bloated war budget and could not think to include at least $428 million for economic and humanitarian assistance?

Hopefully Congress will heed the call of those 40 organizations and include these funds in the 2007 Supplemental. And while I am sure everyone would like the U.S. to withdraw its troops from Iraq, we should not set timelines that ignore political and economic progress in Iraq. Instead our withdrawal ought to be contingent on these two factors. In other words when we withdraw our troops from Iraq, it must be done responsibly.

>Increase of Aid = Decrease of Violence

>According to a number of recent articles, enthusiasm for President Bush’s troops surge is not as widespread among the Army as many have been led to believe. Infantry soldiers who patrol the streets of Iraq daily and have the most at stake in this conflict consider the over-reliance on a troop surge to be a tragic mistake:

“Almost every foot soldier interviewed during a week of patrols on the streets and alleys of east Baghdad said that Bush’s plan would halt the bloodshed only temporarily. The soldiers cited a variety of reasons, including incompetence or corruption among Iraqi troops, the complexities of Iraq’s sectarian violence and the lack of Iraqi public support, a cornerstone of counterinsurgency warfare.” [more]

Meanwhile, officers are decidedly more optimistic. The WaPo reports, “Higher-ranking officers with the task force said they see encouraging signs that cooperation with Iraqis will improve as the new security initiative in Baghdad begins.”

As Mikevotes at Born at the Crest of the Empire notes, “If you’re an infantry soldier seeing little point in your patrols, how do you respond to being sent out, being shot at, seeing comrades wounded and killed, day after day at the hands of officers who you don’t think have a grasp on the reality.”

The reality is that there is no military solution to this conflict. There needs to be something more. So it was with great relief that I read this in today’s New York Times:

“As evidence of the importance of civilian reconstruction, military officers involved in the internal debate are citing a recent classified study, conducted by the Joint Warfare Analysis Center of the Defense Department, based in Dahlgren, Va., that suggests violence in Baghdad drops significantly when the quality of life improves for Iraqi citizens.

Relying on surveys and other data on those wounded and killed in the violence as compiled by the military, the study found that a 2 percent increase in job satisfaction among Iraqis in Baghdad correlated to a 30 percent decline in attacks on allied forces and a 17 percent decrease in civilian deaths from sectarian violence.

But its emphasis on the importance of reconstruction is being cited by senior military officers and Pentagon officials as more evidence that Congress and the government’s other civilian departments must devote more money and personnel to nonmilitary efforts at improving the economy, industry, agriculture, financial oversight of government spending and the rule of law.”

That one line bears repeating: “…violence in Baghdad drops significantly when the quality of life improves for Iraqi citizens.” Simple. We keep seeing signs that the Bush Administration and DoD recognize the importance of economic development and yet in the end they seem to place all their faith (and dollars) in the potential for a military victory. With Gen. Petraeus at the helm, and with this recent report as a reference, we can only hope that this administration will finally address the economic dimension of this conflict. I have so much more to write about this, but I will save it for another post.

>Biden Resolution

>Yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to send Senator Biden’s resolution opposing President Bush’s proposed troop increase in Iraq to the Senate floor for debate. This comes one day after the President’s State of the Union Address, in which he requested that Congress give the planned troop increases in Anbar and Baghdad “a chance to work,” as part of his new strategy in Iraq.

Yet is seems that the President’s proposed change in strategy is already having an effect on the ground in Iraq. According to an article in the New York Times, both political groups and militias in Sadr city are looking to negotiate with the U.S. because they are, “eager to head off a major American military offensive in the district, home to two million Shiites, as the Americans begin a sweeping new effort to retake the streets of Baghdad.”

While the article goes on to point out certain demands of the Sadr militias and political parties that the U.S. will most likely not accommodate—like the releasing of certain prisoners and the cessation of raids in Sadr City—there are other demands that seem more likely be put into action by the U.S. These include providing jobs for Sadr City residents, bringing in new construction projects, and tripling the number of police stations in area.

Perhaps such measures are what the General Petraeus had in mind when, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, he called the situation in Iraq “dire,” but still noted that the troop increase will potentially pave the way for several courses of action that could bring about a change for the better. CNN.com gives a good summary of his testimony:

“It’s not just that there will be additional troops in Baghdad, it’s what they will do and how they will do it that is important,’ Petraeus said. ‘Some members of this committee have observed that there is no military solution to the problems in Iraq. They are correct.’ He said success would depend on Iraqi political and economic progress and the increased capacity of the Iraqi military.”