SWARM: Cutting Iraq's Gasoline Lines

IRAQ: A large swarm destroyed twenty out of sixty fuel tankers in an Iraqi Oil Ministry convoy built to protect tanker drivers against threatened attacks. These threats, some attributed to Ansar al-Sunna, caused a ten day walk-out of fearful tanker drivers. Operations were resumed when 40% of the refinery's tanker drivers reported back to work -- a number that is likely to decrease after this attack. A second planned convoy of sixty tankers was held near the recently re-openned refinery in Beiji to avoid additional loses. The Islamic Army of Iraq took credit for initiating the swarm.

Snapshot of the impact: Lines for gasoline are reportedly up to 2 miles long despite a recent tripling of prices. Violence (assaults, random shootings, and tire burnings) have forced private gas stations in Basra to close, leaving only government stations in operation. The delegitimization effort continues.

UPDATE: Gasoline demand is up 30% in Baghdad due to particularly bad power shortages (detailed here) -- people need the gasoline for their generators.

Comments

[Adam]

Whats most interesting is that neither the US nor Iraqi military appear to be defending these valuable and soft targets when they're out in the open. According to the BBC the convoy was "escorted", by the Marx brothers (aka Iraqi Police Commandoes). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4580412.stm

Apparently US troops were rushed to the scene, after the event
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-01/04/content_4009250.htm

Its kind of interesting that this occurs today as it highlights a feeling that I've had for a month now that the Bush government is accepting that Iraq's a total failure and pulling out.

First Iran won the election. This is going to be a major headache for the next US government, but there's not much that Bush can do right now. Bombing or Invading Iran is right out of the options. A few million Iraqis knocked the US Army off kilter so no one can imagine what 70+ million Iranians will do. Plus they've currently got an actual land border with the US, something that no-one the US has bombed has had for a long time.

Second ignoring the loss of "precious precious oil", the disruptive attacks are certainly rattling up the casualty figures. At least 200 people were killed in the last week (in a stunning 420 separate attacks). For those that like their numerical comparisons that's a 9/11 every ten days (250m people losing 3000, 25m losing 200) but with the added value that in Iraq its all the time and all over the place, not just on one day in a small area of America.

Also in the news is the kidnapping of the Interior Minister's sister. For those that like their ironies black, 3 months ago it was his brother... Security is improving all the time. Sooner or later it'll be ever more distant relatives (Grandad and Grandma perhaps) the insurgents will have to kidnap.

Meanwhile over in the US the pullout begins, cunningly disguised by elections and Christmas. In the past few weeks:

a) the incompetant Pentagon has been replaced as the lead agency in Iraq by the equally incompetant (but led by loyalist Condaleeza) State department
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_william__051224_please_2c_miss_condi_85_.htm

b) Massive cuts in US military spending have been announced, arguably intended as punishment for the militaries failure in Iraq. No sweeties for you, even if you're great for photo opportunities...
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1389186&C=thisweek

c)The US has announced faster handovers to Iraqis
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4582030.stm

and

d) The Washington Post on 2/1/06 announced that US rebuilding money in Iraq was to be frozen. No sense in wasting money now.

I note in passing that the US embassy in Iraq is scheduled to cost a billion dollars. Its psychologically interesting that the US had gone for an iron-fisted Norman Motte and Bailey castle (to remind the Anglo-Saxons who is in charge) for a building thats meant to be the open gateway to the US, but the cost means that it'll never be built. Its a dream building, and means that State department people won't have to cannon-fodder in Iraq (after all, they can't go there until the embassy is finished, sometime in 2106).

If we view the lack of security for a economically and politically critical convoy in the same frame, its clear that the US's "Cut and Saunter" scenario appears to be on. No timetable will be offered for a withdrawal as that would be bad politics. The US will simply do a number of cuts leading to a point where the Iraqis will be able to take over (in the same way that Bush lets his dog drive) and the remaining US squaddies will run for the door marked Kuwait at the opportune time.

[wtofd]

Adam, what do you mean by, "Plus they've currently got an actual land border with the US, something that no-one the US has bombed has had for a long time?" Iran borders Iraq or Iran borders the US (because we have troops in Iraq)?

[dan]

I think what Adam means is that the Iranians can get up close and very personal with the US military in Iraq, Kuwait and elsewhere in the Gulf. And it's not on terms that favour the US military, who already have their hands full fighting one set of opponents and could well do without additional distractions.

It's not exactly a secret that present-day Iraq is a highly permissive environment for Iran to exercise political leverage, gather intelligence, infiltrate personnel and quatermaster weaponry. There are a lot of US military installations with big X's on them that are within easy range of Iran's extensive inventory of mobile medium-range missiles, or are susceptible to infiltration by Iranian agents attached to the Iraqi security forces.

And there is also the rather knotty problem of US lines of supply and retreat that run through the heartland Shia areas that are eminently interdictable - the small-scale and somewhat unprofessional Sadrist unprising of the summer of 2004 put enormous pressure on the US logistics chain; the last thing the US military wants is to have to fight the Sunni insurgency in the West, Centre and North of Iraq whilst its logistics chain collapses due to Iranian proxy activity in the South.

[fester]

The ambush on the fuel convoy was sufficient to shut down refinery production as the drivers went back on strike. At least that is what the AP is reporting.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/13557110.htm

Simple, cheap, sustainable, systems disruption

[Adam]

Dan,

You've summed up my point far better than I could.

Its a certainty that Iran has excellent intelligence on Coalition (well, British, anyway) operations in the South. Iranian pilgrims go through the Basra area a lot, around 1.5 million in 2 years. Thats a lot of eyes. Add in the Iranian links to the local politicians, businessmen, religious groups, police and military and basically its fair to say that the Iranians know anything that they care to know about Coalition operations.

Its also interesting that in the Christmas period (where nothing of worth gets reported a bit of snow, a few good news snippets) the British backed off from claims made earlier that it was the Iranians operating against them. This is, of course, long after Blair announced that this was the case.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1966498,00.html

I think that this claim was originally intended to act as a basis for military action against Iran, and the retraction is due to a realisation that the Iranians in 2005 look a lot nastier than the Iraqis did in 2003. The announcement was simply made at Christmas in order to prevent Blair looking any more like the utter halfwit he already resembles from the "dodgy dossier" days.

[John Robb]

Iran issued a threat that may construed to mean exactly this:

"We are not pessimistic about the talks (with the EU), but at the same time, we warn Europe not to push Iran towards the 'second scenario'," he said. But Mr Larijani did not elaborate on what Iran's 'second scenario' was. "Our scenarios are planned in such a way that, if we lose, others in the region will lose too."

[Cardenio]

That's a much better picture too.

[Adam]

Having said that the US would be mad to do anything about Iran, I feel a bit flip-floppy. I had forgotten that Bush (and his closest advisors) are quite mad, so arguing that it would be madness to do something means that they're more likely to do it, not less.

This was brought into close focus for me today. Over a couple of pints of London Pride I had a chat to a colleague today about Iran / Iraq and he said to me: "Mate, something you've forgotten. Its the British in the South and Bush cares no more for them than he cares for his wifes bleeding haemorroids. And lil' George doesn't care about anything that doesn't directly affect him. Not his wife, not his kids, not his mother, its him and him alone.."

And I thought. "Ah, bugger. I hadn't considered that, you know. He's got a point. Bush doesn't particularly care if US troops live or die, so why should he care about British ones?"

On that basis it makes US attacks on Iran more likely as Bush seeks some kind of military victory in the Middle East as a monument to his ego. It'll still be quite insane however.

[P-]

Hey John,

I came across your site while doing a search for 'illicit' the book by Naim. I came across the author's book while watching McNeil Lehrer NewsHour and they had on T. Friedman... 'The World is Flat...' really great stuff into what i'm trying to create.
The point here to reflect on and ask is 'Is America heading in the wrong direction?...'
especially setting the foreign policies for the next 50 years?? Senator Chuck Schumer mentioned that America is heading in the wrong direction. This dependence on oil as our energy source will further drive us into a box/corner where circumstances will be out of our control then. Think about China, think about Taiwan in-terms of China, think about the missiles then think about China thirst for oil and securing it just like we did w/ Saudi Arabia; think about China's efforts to befriend certain questionable nations in the eyes of the U.S government...
think about something going potentially really wrong within the next fifty years if we don't think green if we don't change our policies...

[Adam]

Hey P,

Its not John, sorry. I figure that I might have a stab at replying.

Asking is "America heading in the right direction" is a loaded question. It presupposes that there is an entity called America which is unified. The recent election results hint that there are 2 Americas, which appear to be mutually antagonistic. One is based on the East and West coasts. The other is inland. Neither is significantly more powerful than the other politically, but the coasts are a lot richer. Corporations largely support the inland group, as they need the money more and are more servile. Even that split breaks down as soon as anyone looks at it closely (a better split might be West Coast, East Coast, Rust Belt, former Civil War South and Great Plains) but it serves to show that talking about America as one entity may miss the point.

A better question could be "are the current people running the US working for the benefit of everyone, or just their personal friends". The answer is pretty obvious from the (also loaded) question. Bush and his immediate friends are the key players in the US, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. They run the US for their immediate benefit. When they get caught occasionally one needs to be thrown off the wagon, like Ken Lay, but by and large its a pretty happy wagon. The working assumption is that their guarded fortresses will be immune to the wider social chaos from their policies.

Current US policy on the environment, in prisoners dilemma terms, is always defect. The US never cooperates. Worse still it actually has policies to harm environmental situations (a sort of defect plus option). Next time you're out and about count the number of SUVs. Everyone of them is a big upraised finger to the concepts of the enviroment or wider society.

As for China, the Chinese government will do whatever they want. Its clear from the recent problems over the EU shipping advanced weapons to China that the US isn't even in a position to discuss such matters with China, being reduced to begging Europe not to sell them. Its the perils of being a debtor. Taiwan has been reduced to the point of refusing Pandas on the grounds that they will be the thin end of a very large wedge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4594452.stm

[Barry]

John Robb, a question - was the attack on oil tankers really a 'swarm', or just a regular attack/ambush?