THE SECOND FRONT IN IRAQ

A beguiling false narrative currently circulating throughout the media, is that the US surge in Baghdad may work given time (or at worst keep violence in check at current levels). In reality, things in Iraq are about to get much worse over the next year and approach what could be called a second front. The main reason for this is that the Petraeus/Nagl/Kilucullen approach to counter-insurgency is antiquated/misguided and will, soon, radically increase the level of resistance rather than lessen it.

The Splintering of the Mahdi Army

So far, the bulk of the resistance to the US occupation of Iraq, has been from Sunni groups (from gangs to jihadis to ex-Baathists). These numerous groups operate within an open source framework which is both resistant to counter-insurgency/political resolution and extremely quick to learn/adapt. Further, the relative modernity of Iraq features vectors of cross-connection that undermine any and all attempts at clearing/holding territory (the core of the Petraeus plan). As a result, no progress will be made against the insurgency. In fact, there are strong signs that the open source insurgency has found ways to keep up its momentum.

In contrast, the Shiite opposition to the US occupation has been primarily political. This opposition has taken the form of corruption (through sectarianism in the ranks of the police/army/government organizations) and an occasional revolt by Sadrist militias (to curry political favor). However, that status quo (which once formed a sort of controlled chaos through 'loyalist paramilitaries') is in the process of rapid devolution. The US military and political campaign against Sadr's militia, as part of a political bid to bring Sunni groups into the government, has caused the Mahdi Army to fragment. These new small splinter groups fall into three categories (with help from the University of California's Babak Rahimi):

• Mahdistic (Najaf and Basra). Target: the increasingly irrelevant Shiite establishment in Najaf and the Iraqi government.
• Sectarian militias (primarily in Sadr City) Target: Sunni groups and the US military.
• Regional militias. Specifically, the remnants of Sadr's militia and the Fadhila party (an off-shoot of Sadrist movement) in a contest for control of Basra and the Southern oil company.

Real Chaos

These groups, in contrast to their former host organization (which was similar in cohesion and approach to the Hezbollah and Hamas), are driven by loyalties that transcend the national political dialogue. As a result, they are relatively immune to political reconciliation. Over the next year, pressure applied by the US military and the Iraqi government will likely force these groups to recast themselves in a fashion similar to the open source Sunni insurgency (with all of the formlessness, speed, swarming, innovation, etc. that implies). This means that attacks against the government and the US military will inexorably escalate from Baghdad to the southeast. These attacks will take three forms:

• Systems disruption that targets the southern oil fields and export infrastructure -- this month's bombing of a pipeline from the Rumaila oil field is an early data point. This disruption will increasingly starve the Iraqi government of its only source of revenue and drive up global oil prices.
• IED attacks on US supply lines. The US supply routes from Kuwait will fall under increasing attack. This will create shortages of fuel/power and ancillary goods at the big US bases (really small cities completely supplied from the outside).
• Attacks on Shiite religious leadership that will fracture Shiite social bonds and potentially the already hollow government.

BTW, if you want to understand where all of this is going longer term, please buy my book, "Brave New War."

Comments

[zenpundit]

"Attacks on Shiite religious leadership that will fracture Shiite social bonds and potentially the already hollow government."

Only a true Mahdist-Shiite group led by an identifiable, self-proclaimed Mahdi ( not unlike the Sunni leader of the attack on Mecca in 1979)would commit such an act. More than likely, they would go down fighting and not survive .

Given the very high regard in which the Shiite community holds it's Marjas, this would result in a closing of ranks among non-Mahdist shiites (99%). Lashing out against Sunnis is the most likely outcome, even if they had nothing to do with that kind of an attack.

[Duncan Kinder]

"IED attacks on US supply lines. The US supply routes from Kuwait will fall under increasing attack. This will create shortages of fuel/power and ancillary goods at the big US bases (really small cities completely supplied from the outside)."

I would presume that most vistors on this blog are also familiar with Col. Patrick Lang's blog, but this is one of his big topics. He depicts a scenario in which the Shi'tes disrupt vulnerable supply lines towards Baghdad, giving rise to a situation resembling the First Afghan War ( my characterization, not his.).

http://turcoplier.typepad.com

[anna missed]

Interesting post, especially in light of the Patraeaus plan, which I would assume must also entail the abandonment of the "force protection" mantra, which = a structural change in causality expectations -- as born out over the past several months. Prospects on the ground by those on a 2ed or 3ed tour already, are being told to to get out of the pot and into the fire.

[MaYHeM]

I see by your many comments that you don't think the current leadership, nor the current methods can succeed in stamping out the insurgency in Iraq.

What I don't see, is a suggestion of how you might approach this problem successfully.

I'd love to see an article on your approach to counter-insurgency in Iraq.

Thanks

[Cavolonero]

Amazon just told me my pre-ordered copy shipped ahead of schedule ~ now that's a surge right there !

[Barry]

Duncan, it's http://www.turcopolier.typepad.com/

I hate those 'http://' vs 'http://www' vs 'www'. Thank God for Google!

[Duncan Kinder]

"Duncan, it's http://www.turcopolier.typepad.com/

I hate those 'http://' vs 'http://www' vs 'www'. Thank God for Google!"

Sorry for the gotcha glitch (g).

Meanwhile, I note that a demand for a solution for the Iraq War is now on the table.

Other than to note that a perpetual motion machine would be a splendid solution, may I humbly suggest that those who created this mess come forward with one themselves. After all, they have no one but themselves to blame for the current situation.

[adam]

Duncan,

"may I humbly suggest that those who created this mess come forward with one themselves"

:-D Agree completely. The depressing truth is that they can't. The Surge is a last desperate throw of the dice (or maybe it was a in 2006, I've lost track of US last desperate throws of the dice). The current US government position is rather like a drowning man shouting to those survivors safely ashore "teach me to swim!" but in this case he's the idiot that drilled a hole in the bottom of the boat.

There were many solutions to Iraq that the US ignored. Like Capt Jack Sparrow the US government "liked to wave as the opportunites went past". Currently the most feasible solution is a 2008 US pullout, SCIRI taking over Iraq and Iran winning an epoch-altering victory. If the US doesn't pull out then the likelihood is collapse of the US military by around 2010, followed by a US pullout, SCIRI victory etc....

I suppose the current solution depends on whether the US wants a functional military or not. Its going to take a number of years before the US military gets over the Iraq debacle either way.

[carln]

Why is it that people keep referring to the "surge" campaign as a last-ditch effort? Does anyone really think that a withdrawal will begin in June-July, the point at which Gates says we should know whether the "surge" has worked? It's clearly not working (check out the record-breaking car bombings in the past 2 days) and Bush is still claiming a withdrawal of U.S. troops would be a "victory for the enemy." I think its pretty clear that he'll veto any legislation that mentions withdrawal or a time table. Even if the Democrats could muster the 2/3s of the Senate vote to override the veto (which they won't) history shows us that presidents have a tendency to disregard the Congress when it suits them.

[TheDreamer]

Damn, I don't think I'll be able to sustain myself from here and still get a job. Sure the... I know how to sustain this place, but still, why not be free?

[adam]

Carb,

"Why is it that people keep referring to the "surge" campaign as a last-ditch effort? Does anyone really think that a withdrawal will begin in June-July, the point at which Gates says we should know whether the "surge" has worked?"

Well, I've just missed my train, again. So here goes.

The answer to that question is complex but comes down to a devils brew of US politics, Iraqi politics, and US military realities.

The US politics are that if The Surge fails in the middle of this year then there isn't time to put another reality-based plan together whilst Bush is still president. During the argument for The Surge it was stated that there was no "plan b". Staggeringly this appears to be true. Both McCain and Petraeus echo this position. There is no plan for if the The Surge fails. This doesn't mean it won't fail, its just that the reality is that there isn't anything that can be done.

The Surge itself is simply a repeat of a
number of earlier plans - around 6 of them from 2003-7, but using more troops. Of course this time the US has decided to go after the Shi'ites and their militias (70% of the population) rather than the Sunnis (25-ish%) which is, shall we say, an interesting way of failing upwards. It didn't work before, we'll try again with more troops and make it extra hard on ourselves.

There are still a number of options Bush has which are either mad or stupid, such as attacking Iran and leaving a massive (world?) war for his successor to clean up, but for Iraq this is it. There's nothing left in the Bush administration box of tricks. They could do the things that Bush's dads friends gently advised, or the things that the Democrats are saying, but thats so abjectly humiliating that they probably won't.

In reality the situation is so bad that even the most egotistical General cannot face the position of War on Terror Czar. OK, admittedly, appointing a Czar is a last-ditch PR move done when there's no point in continuing the policy and no-one wants to admit it. The classic example is Drugs. The formula runs pointless policy, unsolvable aims, a complete waste of time, deeply embarrassing to politicians = Czar. I suppose that American politicians could admit that in the war on Drugs they've criminalised 2 generations of the underclass for no readily explicable reason, but frankly a Czar is far less embarrassing. Of course cynics like me might note that there is, in the US system of government, already a War Czar. Its called the President. But lets put it this way, whats better for Bush - looking stupid or having a few US troops die. Dead US troops are at least things that can be ignored after a day or so, but a reputation for stupidity lasts forever. Better to have a Czar to blame.

Moving away from the States and looking at Iraqi politics this is the best opportunity that the Iranian-backed SCIRI have of manipulating the US to kill Moqtadr al-Sadr who represents the Iraqi Shi'ite poor - basically the bast majority. The theological arguments behind this are incredibly abtruse, but the bottom line is that Sadr stands for Iraqi nationalism against Iran and SCIRI want a pan-Shi'ite world with Iran very definately as "the big dog". Hakim, SCIRIs leader (lived in Iran for 20+ years), persuaded Bush in his meeting just prior to the surge that killing Moqtadr will end the Iraqi civil war. Of course killing Moqtadr with the US to blame will result in another 1920 Rebellion which SCIRI believe they can take the lead on to reverse the outcome of previous rebellions, but frankly asking Bush to know complicated historical things like that is just silly. In Iraq, its always been the Sunnis that successfully wound up top dogs. In this case SCIRI want to win. If The Surge fails SCIRI won't have enough influence in the US anymore to get the US military to kill al-Sadr. Sadr is of course waiting out The Surge (he pulled his ministers out of the coalition government - making a minority administration) and its why his troops aren't knocking the hell out of the Sunnis right now. Ironically SCIRI want to get their death squads back into action against the Sunnis but sadly have to wait for the Americans to finish off their political opponents.

Which brings us to the US military. The disaster that is Iraq starts with Rumsfeld's legendary theory of "shock and awe". Repeating the thinking of the 1930s and 1960s theorists Rumsfeld believed that massive air strikes would force the Iraqi regime to collapse, enabling a democracy to take root. For those with short memories Shock and Awe called for the removal of most US troops by August 2003. Stability and reconstruction tasks would go to someone else (anybody else!) but preferably a coterie of Iraqi exiles that the Pentagon had picked out, along with a few Republican loyalists. That the Iraqi exiles were deeply unpopular in the country that they hadn't been in for 30 years was besides the point. Chalabi (nicknamed Chalabi the Thief in Iraq) hadn't been in Iraq since he was 11 years old - the Pentagon wanted him to be President.

Now I am going to shock a lot of people by being fair to Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld didn't have a choice with this. The US military was designed for fast moving armoured warfare against a government that could recognised defeat and surrender - preferably quickly. It costs nearly $100bn a year to fight in Iraq without adding any additional costs. Each US Marine costs $400k a year. Thats far too much money to spend. The US military was not designed for long term Colonial operations in a hostile non-English speaking nation. In fact the entire design of the US military post Vietnam was emphatically *anything other than Vietnam* - counter-insurgency training was dropped in 1975 in the US army.

Which brings us to the Army, which is doing most of the fighting. The U.S. Army broke in the 1970s following Vietnam but this was not apparent until the 1980s. The current US military is in much the same situation. Currently junior and midlevel officers and soldiers are leaving the Army as fast as they can resulting in the legendary "stop loss". At the other end of the pipeline the Army has dropped its standards for recruiting and retention. Basically the people able to leave are, and the ones coming in aren't up to scratch. Thats pretty much a definition of "trouble brewing". Thats with only four years of the war by the way - there's another few years (a decade if the next President wants) to run the situation is going to get worse. In order to Surge in Bagdhad with only another 30k troops the Army found itself flinging units back into combat after less than a year at home, crippling training plans and dropping unit coherency as an aim.

The worst sign of cracking is the need for longer tours in combat. Its now often 15 months not 12 - an increase of 25%. That time will go up as The Surge continues. Right now the entire active-duty US army force is either deployed, set to deploy soon, or within one year of coming home from Iraq or Afghanistan. There's nothing left in the locker. This has interesting results in retention and survivability. Exhausted troops that are less well trained than before are going to die more - the survivors are more likely to quit.

The only way out of this hole is a draft. But to deliver the millions of Americans needed to rapidly build a larger military would need time - 18 to 24 months. Will the new president support a Draft? Would he Hell! Its electoral suicide. The 19-24 year olds in the US don't vote but if the choice is cannon-foddering in Iraq then surely even the dumbest kid will realise that its their life on the line. If they don't then the next elections kids certainly will. Thats a seismic shift in US politics and not one that baby-boomer politicians want to face right now.

Which brings us back to the US military in American politics. The US army isn't just the soldiers, its their families. The reality is that deployment affects the families far more than than the soldiers. The soldiers know if they're wounded or not, but the families have to run to the TV - every time. Extending the combat tours creates additional family trauma whilst at the same time shortening their time together with their soldier-loved one between Iraq deployments guarantees problems. If anyone thinks that the young wives don't have a say if their husband stays in the army then they've never been married.

So thats why The Surge is the last opportunity for the US to sort out the whole mess. A new US government isn't going to want to piss its political future away in some godforsaken place. The internal Iraqi politics are uniquely interesting right now. And the US military can't do any more without a draft, which would have had to start last year.

This is it, there is no plan b.

[MaYHeM]

Duncan, your comments seems a bit of a cop out. Yes, yes, we all know most readers here blame the administration for the problems that now exist. But let's get over ourselves for just a moment. The blame is laid, but the problem still exists. Continuous finger pointing will not solve the issue at hand.

Other suggestions that the most viable option for Iraq is a 2008 pull out is preposterous and completely avoids the issue by Turtling.

There's been little investigation or research into the notion of 'after Iraq', or Plan B. Obviously, most reader (and yourself) feel that the surge will fail, as do I. However, once it does, there is no option to simply walk away and hope everything goes ok. The result is likely, over time, a middle east under the black flag of pan-Islamism, lead primarily by a unified state of Iran/Pak/Saud.

Once the 'push' in Iraq is over for the militants, they'll be able to focus eastward, toppling the weak Pak govnmt and wresting control of a nuke state. Followed by an easy push over Monarchy in Saudi Arabia. Not to mention the surrounding Nations already covertly on the pan-Islamic side, such as Eygpt, Jordon, and Syria, easily united with their friends in Lebanon and Palestine.

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=478870&attrib_id=7374

SO, I pose the question again, who has a better idea, than the one already in place, stay and protect our interests. As obviously, running away and hiding will festering a worsening boil, no?

[Duncan Kinder]

"SO, I pose the question again, who has a better idea, than the one already in place, stay and protect our interests. As obviously, running away and hiding will festering a worsening boil, no?"

I trust that you do, and look forward to hearing it.

[MaYHeM]

No, offense brother, but I don't run a web site offering up dialog on the situation. I'm a patron looking for answers here.

What I can opine, pulling out of Iraq now will make the current mess look like the Day Care Playground! My thoughts are that folks offering pulling out as a complete solution, obviously don't understand the problem at large or don't care about the consequences, as long as they can defer payment.

[Marcello]

MaYHeM, you have to understand that there are problems which simply do not have a satisfactory solution, no matter how much one wishes for the rabbit to come out of the cylinder. Germany could not have stopped the allies in 1945, regardless of anything they might have tried.
If you think, as you do, that the surge is going to fail then there are no others appealing options.
Simple as that.
You might pretend that nothing happened and try to hang on until the ground forces are broken.
All in all a withdrawal begin to sound the least bad option. Yes there will be problems and instability. Which is ironic, considered that destabilizing the local regimes was one of the goals (democratic revolution anyone?). But all in all I would say that the locals have a better chanche of fixing things alone that with our incompetent help. Algeria and Syria dealt with their islamists more succesfully than we could ever hope to do.

[Duncan Kinder]

"

No, offense brother, but I don't run a web site offering up dialog on the situation. I'm a patron looking for answers here.

What I can opine, pulling out of Iraq now will make the current mess look like the Day Care Playground! My thoughts are that folks offering pulling out as a complete solution, obviously don't understand the problem at large or don't care about the consequences, as long as they can defer payment."

So it is indeed correct that you have no solution?

[adam]

Duncan

"So it is indeed correct that you have no solution?"

:-D.

MaYHeM,

"No, offense brother, but I don't run a web site offering up dialog on the situation. I'm a patron looking for answers here."

Trust me on this you're not a client. Clients pay me for this on a daily rate (actually its every 15 minutes with a minimum of 2 hours. I can, using this formula, "work" for 20 hours a day). On the other hand I prettify their stuff up with caveats for money. I even use (for one American company) the god-awful WINEP drivel that they insist is accurate and won't accept alternatives (odd situation - a Jewish boss and the gentile my company deals with wants to impress him. Surreal). Still, lifes a trade.

I do have to say that Duncans really being very nice to you - far nicer than I'd be. The problem with having a solution is that you have to have an end point that represents the consequences that you want. That then normally tells you the actions that you need to take. The reality is that the far-right Republicans in charge have no idea what they want from Iraq so they cannot put together a solution. The result is the mental lockdown in the US government that we're currently seeing. Nothing goes in, nothing comes out.

I'd like to point to any number of coherent and well argued solutions to the US problem in Iraq (though not the Iraqi problems in Iraq that the US has caused - which is an interesting morality lesson in itself). These have been discussed but have been completely ignored by the US government and its supporters because, frankly, they're frighteningly both stupid and egotistical.

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/IraqCSR23.pdf

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070423/cole

The first two were written separately. The first was by Steve Simon who is a Middle East expert for the NSC. The second is written by the legendary Juan Cole, professor of Middle East studies at the University of Michigan. Oddly both documents have three common themes.

1) The Surge probably won't work, because the Iraqi situation is - at the same time- an insurgency with multiple sides and a civil war with multiple factions.

2) The US occupation is a part of the problem. Certainly it has formed a part of Iraqi nationalist resistance to the occupier as represented by the Army of the Mahdi.

3) Real civil war will break out if US forces suddenly withdrew (key word is suddenly). Iraq hasn't hit bottom yet (defined as Somalia or 30 Years War Germany). The Iraqi warring factions are using mortars, not real artillery and tanks, so far.

You'll note that these facts presented are reality based, not faith based. An important part of any consideration of Republican US plans in the Middle East. So the options they present are based on these three points.

1) The US goals in Iraq should be to limit the effects of the civil war (basically to simply stop it becoming too awful). Forget all the democracy and other drivel - dead issues now - Iraqis will decide on their government following a limited civil war. At the end Iraq will look more like Lebanon than, say, Arizona.

2) Whatever happens in Iraq the US must keep its disaster from spreading across the region into Kuwait or other nations. Everything possible to keep stability and order must be done. That certainly includes the US not bombing Iran or threatening to. It also includes putting a short leash on the Israelis so that they don't do something to drag the US into a decades long anti-Arab war. The Israelis really want the US to stay and see disorder spread across the Middle East - the argument is that bloodbaths in neighbouring nations will increase Israeli security. I think they're wrong (mainly because the same people thought that the Lebanon war was a good idea).

3) The best way to accomplish both goals is to declare that the US are leaving on a strict timetable negotiated with the Iraqi government (who was elected on a promise to get the US out).

3b) Broad negotiations with all of the warring factions to end the civil war (including "terrorists" - the US has no problem with groups like Malakis Dawa in the Iraqi government, so there shouldn't be an issue with negotiating with the Sunnis).

The bottom line is that no matter what happens the US is leaving.

This last one is the report of the Iraq Study Group. Its quite large, but I've thrown it in as a sign of what reality-based Republicans thought might work. Its broadly similar.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/international/20061206_btext.pdf

The reality is that all of these well meaning and quite workable options aren't very interesting to the Republicans. The, for want of a better phrase, thinking runs: "Negotiate? With sand-ni---rs? Hardly! We tell them what we want and they obey! We're Christians and going to Heaven and their God just doesn't exist! Its an Idol!" As the sign on the British section of the Green Zone said "yee-hah is not a foreign policy", but its "yee-hah" we're sticking to.

Whats going to be even more fun if people start saying the US should negotiate with Syria or Iran! Don't they know that we were planning to invade them too! (after the massive success of Iraq... Seriously, that was the neo-con plan).

So the Republicans have no idea what to do, and they're terrified of the alternative options, so we're now just waiting for the US election in November 2008 in a kind of "Waiting for Godot with Random Rockets". Blair goes soon, so do the British troops. Personally Blair should go to The Hague for his war-crimes. But for the US the next President takes over in January 2009.

On current death rates that will mean at least 65k more Iraqis will be confirmed dead (and thats only in areas where we can keep count - most of the country is now a total no-go zone for Western troops) by the time the new President takes over. This is the equal to 650k Americans. For a fun moral comparison only 3k died on 9/11 - a number Iraq does every month in real terms and in poulation terms every 3 days. Presumably the dead Iraqis will get the same loving attention as the 9/11 dead did in the US. I wonder if they'll even get a movie?

Anyway time is passing. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick.

[adam]

Just in passing a fun and amusing comedy of Iraq from the BBC.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid281953791/bclid281861117/bctid281861116

Its not meant to be funny but an early laugh out loud moment is when an Iraqi says to a US soldier that things were better under Saddam and the US squaddie flails around claiming that freedom is better than electricity, the Iraqis quite reasonable response you can't live without electricity. Later on the scenes where the US arrest the entire town council and ask / shout questions at them all in English is somewhere near Spinal Tap levels of madness:

Later on the Americans arrest the police and then the army so the joke just keeps getting funnier each time. Sooner or later the Americans will have arrested everyone.

Overall its a clear analysis of where the US went wrong in Iraq. Watch the sunglasses - the American troops have a real problem with looking Iraqi people in the eye. I'm old enough to remember when the British Army recruitment videos had that as a major no-no in developing relationships.

[MaYHeM]

Yes, I'd say it's safe to say I have no solution, which would be why I would ask you.

I thought you might have some light to shed, I see I am wrong.

I do believe, pulling out will be worse than the current situation by a long shot.

Let me explain something, that apparently has gone over like a German Zeplin. This was not an attempt to attack you or call you out. I'm merely trying to illicit information that I would find of great interest in a place where I find a lot of solid information on the issue at hand.

Adam, on the other hand, seems to have placed a nice little position together explaining why he believes there is no 'real' solution.

Adam, do YOU have a website? Maybe I can replace a bookmark I'll no longer be using. ;)

[MaYHeM]

So you think we should withdrawl?

XXXXXXX, April 21 (Reuters) - Shells pounded XXXXXX on Saturday, killing at least 73 people to swell a death-toll already in the hundreds from this week's battles between militant Islamists and allied XXXXX and YYYYYYYY troops.

The escalating war has also sent more than 321,000 residents -- nearly a third of XXXXXX total population.....

The name of the country isn't Iraq...

Thursday, October 7, 1993

President Bill Clinton, under intense pressure from Congress, reportedly prepared Wednesday to set a clear timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Somalia while temporarily bolstering U.S. troop strength and firepower there

Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, warned that a "precipitous" withdrawal would amount to "an engraved invitation to aggressors" around the world and would send a message of U.S. weakness and irresolution.

We did "Bring Our Troops Home Now" and "End the War"....at least US involvement in the war. Fourteen years later the war itself still rages...

BTW...Levin was right