Where Is This Iraq "Progress"?

Allen Pizzey Questions The Political Motives Behind Some Assessments Of Iraq Security

(CBS)  This story was written by CBS News correspondent Allen Pizzey, in Baghdad.

---

Someone once said that the job of president (or prime minister, or any other kind of national leader) should not be given to anyone who actually wants it. That being unrealistic, perhaps there ought to at least be a rule that says no one should be allowed to seek such employment unless they demonstrate a grasp of reality greater than the reach of their own ambitions.

Case in point, at least from the perspective of Baghdad, which is, after all, the epicenter of the issue that dominates the U.S. presidential "race", is Senator John McCain's recent analysis of the situation here.

According to transcripts of his appearance on CNN's "Late Edition", the senator confirmed that he had made the following statement: "There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods today."

He went on to add "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed Humvee." Apart from the fact that he probably meant "unarmored", the statement displays a woeful ignorance of the news from here.

Even those who buy the argument that the media "reports only bad things," can hardly deny that there is bad news. Surely that ought to count double for someone seeking a job that includes the description of commander-in-chief for a war he says may not be over by the time the position next becomes vacant.

For example, the Associated Press' first lead of the day today (March 29, 2007) began thus: "A bomb planted under a parked car tore through an outdoor market in a mixed Baghdad neighborhood Thursday, killing several people and wounding at least 20, police and hospital officials said."

In other news, two policemen were killed when they approached a car containing a corpse and it exploded. Gunmen targeted the head of the traffic police this morning. He escaped but two traffic policemen were killed. The bodies of 13 people were found across Baghdad. They had all been shot. The deputy governor of Kirkuk escaped a roadside bomb. A female engineer was kidnapped as she left her office in Diwaniya. Iraqi forces arrested 14 insurgents and found a cache of weapons in Hilla.

By an unofficial count, there have been seven major explosions in Baghdad so far today, at least some of them car bombs.

There was, however, some good news, at least in the context of Iraq. The U.S. military reported that only one of two truck bombs used in attacks on Iraqi and American forces in Falluja contained chlorine. And things could improve. It is only one p.m. local time as this is being written.

Senator McCain has visited Iraq in the past, and no doubt will again as the U.S. election campaign gains momentum. VIPs are generally flown to the Green Zone (a.k.a. the "International Zone"), which houses the American and other embassies as well as most of the Iraqi government. A notice to U.S. embassy employees today, issued shortly before the new ambassador, Ryan Crocker, was sworn in cited "the recent increase of indirect fire attacks in the embassy compound".

The Green Zone has been hit by mortars or rockets at least six times in the last seven days. One person has been killed and ten wounded. Embassy personnel reportedly have been instructed that body armor and helmets are now required for all "outdoor activities" within the four square-mile zone. That includes walking to the cafeteria.

If the Senator decides to hang out with the troops, he might take note of the signs and regulations that govern their conduct and provide a good indication as to how things are going here. Before leaving the sprawling U.S. base known as Camp Victory, which is adjacent to the Baghdad International Airport, there is a special place for weapons to be loaded, and anti-IED devices known as "Warlocks" switched on.

At every exit from the camps around the airport and the Green Zone there is a sign which reads: "All Weapons Red. Lock and Load."

No one in their right mind goes on the streets here without security, a situation succinctly summed up by retired General Barry McCaffrey in a document he compiled in his job as a West Point professor. The general, who until late last year was of the publicly-held opinion that things were improving, was quoted in the New York Times as saying that because the government here does not hold sway in any province, "no Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign NGO [nongovernmental organization], nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi, without heavily armed protection."

When Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki went to Fallujah earlier this month to talk to tribal sheikhs who are now willing to take American money and arms to fight the insurgents, the honour guard of Iraqi troops on hand to meet his helicopter did not have magazines in their AK47s. All weapons had been cleared and ammunition taken away before he arrived. The only lethal weapons were in the hands of al-Maliki's personal security detail, which includes Western contractors.

For Senator McCain to claim there are places here where all is well is to woefully minimize the dangers faced by the troops he otherwise so admirably supports. A patrol of military police on their way to one of the about-to-be-established Joint Security Stations last week provides another case in point.

Leave aside the fact that the soldiers run a gauntlet of IEDs every day just to get there, and the convoy had to stop, gunners nervously scanning the surrounding houses and crossroads, until someone decided that a piece of debris in the road did not hide an IED. It was merely part of the seat of Humvee that had been blown up the day before, killing four soldiers. Once inside the walls of the fortified police station of their students and supposed allies, no American soldier took off a single piece of protective gear. American sentries backed up the Iraqis on the gate and roof. Humvee drivers stayed with their vehicles.

A young sergeant was assigned to accompany myself and cameraman Mark LaGanga wherever we went. When I suggested that it was fine and the sergeant could take a break, he replied quietly; "No sir. I need to be with you. Wouldn't want to take the risk of you being kidnapped."

"In a police station?" I asked. "You're kidding."

"No sir," he replied, "I am not."

Any time Senator McCain wants to walk the streets of Baghdad, unarmed and without a serious security detail, we'd be glad to lend him a camera so he can record his experience.

[grumpas]

The Republican noise machine has been telling us for 4 long years now it's improving in Iraq! Only to discover once again they don't have a clue what they are talking about. I stopped listening to anything they had to say a long time ago. McCain is smoking the same kind of crazy weed Bush has been for the last 7 years. All we need is another nut case like him in office! So, think hard before you vote Republican!

[ramos937]

After he had been tortured while in Vietnam POW camp, McCain was offered the chance to be free. He laid down a condition that the rest of his buddies had to be freed also before he accepted. They were not and he was not. That makes him a hero in my book and entitled to much slack.

Wolf Blizner, The Situation Room, interviewed Mike Ware, a correspondent based in Bagdad. Ware was told of McCain's claim that it was safe to walk certain parts of Bagdad for Americans and that the General went about in unarmed vehicles. Ware, a long time visitor to Iraq, said any American doing so in any part of Iraq, would be committing suicide. Also, that all high ranking military folks do not go out of the Green Zone. When they must, they are heavily guarded and protected.

[knyghtwolf]

Celebrate April FIRST by PROUDLY displaying your support of BUSH DAY April 1st...I have all my tee shirts all cleaned and pressed and ready to go...BUSH DAY, April first...don't forget it!!!!!!

[bluestardad]

One of the few good articles on this board! McCain is once again lying to the public trying to put a good face on the entirely bad experience of Iraq for the Republicans. He has not learned from his Dicktater that no matter how many times you say it does still not make it true!

[kcstan11]

I like McCain but ...

If he is going to walk the streets of Bahgdad I hope that he takes Dumbya, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowicz and Rumsfeld with him ...

I am sure that none of them could resist the temptation of having "flowers thrown at their feet".

This was an excellant HONEST article by Allen Pissey.

[r9119111]

I hope no one suffers from the delusion that the Iraq War has or will ever benefit the American people. There are no good reasons for us to be in Iraq, trying to impose our will on them. If we just redeployed and allowed the inhabitants in that area to settle their own differences, there would undoubtedly be much chaos and bloodshed. That is the way people in that area have always settled their differences. Instead, we should mind our own business and go about the process of building a life without heavy oil dependence. We should have been doing this since it became apparent the oil reserves were running low and dependence of oil use was increasing. Big Money Interests could never allow divergence from their plans because it would allow competition to squeeze into their profit margins.

The world is overpopulated right now and world tension is only going to increase. In the future, natural resources, like oil, are going to be used up at an alarming rate. All of the surviving people of the world will be fighting for the same limited supply of resources. Population control and a sensible approach to governance will be unavoidably necessary. Let%u2019s be realistic. Cooperation demands sacrifice. Do you think greedy people will ever allow that to happen? LOL

[p-syrus]

Since it is in the interests of both Al Qaeda and Iran to destablize Iraq, they will work together for a while. They'll fight later, when we're gone.

Posted by opfor311 at 09:14 PM : Mar 29, 2007

Got it wrong.

Since the most likely way to stabilize Iraq is with a government dominated by religious shiites, Iran is actually far more interested in aqctually stabilising Iraq than the bush administration is. The only other practical possibility is establishment of another iraqi "strongman" (i.e. Saddam II) which wouldn't go down well with european allies & would be hard to square with bush administration propaganda.

Further, Al Qaeda regards all shia as apostate heretics, a religious category far more unacceptable to them than mere infidels like christians & secular westerners. Shia understand this and accordingly would never cooperate with Al Qaeda. It would be their own death warrant.

Al Qaeda's primary goal is the re-establishment of sunni religious muslim dominance in the muslim world in opposition to the western secularist influences which have established themselves in recent decades. If they achieve that goal they'll seek to eliminate all forms of insufficiently strict sunni practice such as secularism, shia, sufi & bahai next.

[opfor311]

jpesot,

I remember an old Arab proverb that goes, 'I against my brothers, my brothers and I against our cousins, my cousins and I against the world.'

What it means is that while they have private squabbles among themselves (to include murder most foul), they will band together against a outside threat long enough to vanquish it, then they will return to their own fights.

Since it is in the interests of both Al Qaeda and Iran to destablize Iraq, they will work together for a while. They'll fight later, when we're gone.

Oh, by the way, the same reason was why there was a low level of contact and cooperation between the Saddam and Al Qaeda before the war.

[montraville]

Also the GMC Yukon Denial!

Actually, business is a bigger consumer of energy than private individuals driving their cars, but business is also taking more of an initiative, because when rising energy costs threaten their bottom line, they do rational things like install solar panels, fluorescent lights, and insulation.

Irrational private consumers just call up Bill O'Reilly and complain, and he instantly betrays capitalism and goes on his show, ranting against futures market "speculators" like Huey Long did in the '30s. Seeing Bill toss the affluent half of his constituency overboard was really enjoyable.

[montraville]

The US is an amazing country. We have a lot of energy and collective power. If we decide to put our collective energy into making true oil conservation a reality. Then we won't have to fight people to get access to cheap oil. If we cut our consumption, our expenses will fall and the oil will last longer.

In the 1970's Jimmy Carter said we should approach our energy problems with "the moral equivalency of war" and he was right. If we had listened to him back then, we wouldn't be at war now.

So cut all new highway construction and divert the money to mass transit. Make all mass transit internet-friendly so people can leave their house knowing when a bus is going to arrive on their corner.

Mandate the highest feasible hiking of MPG numbers that can be done.

Require all four-wheeled vehicles over a certain weight to be heavily taxed, a tax exemption being allowed only for commercial licenses.

Require all new construction be highly energy- efficient.



Raise taxes on fuel enough to limit demand.

[jpesot]

I saw this quote:

"it was Al Qaeda and Iran who devised the strategy after all to foment civil strife to ensure we couldn't establish a democracy in the Middle East and ensure this was bloody and long enough to wear down our impatient public)"

Huh??

Al Qaeda is Sunni, Iran is Shia. They don't like each other much, thus the sectarian civil war in Iraq.

So the idea that they have a "joint strategy" seems pretty silly.

[jpesot]

fredgrad2000 --

You'd like lefties to describe what exactly happens if we redeploy. We ask Bush supporters the same qustion about the surge.

What REAL evidence do you have that a SURGE will work. If we listen to the Prez, and those who support surge, we hear very little definitive response. We get answers that the surge is our "last best chance". No real defense of why it might work, and what happens next. Another faith based initiative from those who do not deserve our faith any longer.

As for Al Qeada's strategy, they'd love us to stay in Iraq. It is cheap and easy for them to use Iraq to increase anti-Americanism in the region, helping them recruit and build secret cells in other parts of the world. It is those cells that watch the clock and wait.

Al Qaeda in Iraq is a diversionary force. The real leaders are elsewhere, waiting, growing, and planning.

If we redeploy, the Iraq government will have no choice but to make the hard decisions. Al Queda will loose it edge because the other groups will turn on them too.

And AL Qeada will NOT place camps in Iraq. They'd be easy to spot and attack. No. They will keep them in the border areas of Afganistan and Pakistan -- and that's one of the places to which we should redeploy.

[bluestardad]

McCain is a liar just like the rest of the republicans! He is just pumping up the standard party line! STICK A FORK IN HIM HE IS DONE IN A LAND SLIDE!

[fredgrad2000]

archangelric -

I don't think we're so far off your page as you seem to think. My point is first and foremost to start a discussion that centers once on the present rather than halliburton and Bush Lied conspiracy theories. I have heard comments from Murtha and Biden and others, I have always thought Joe Biden was a reasonable, informed Senator (unlike many) - but there is little discussion in the news (i.e., that gets to the public) and none on these comment boards related to anything beyond the "withdrawal" phase - specifics that show the public that the alternatives aren't just "surge" or "cut and run" and show that someone is really acknowledging who we lost to and marking ways to counter their victory and limit it (Murtha and others focus too narrowly, maybe because they understand the limits of the American public's understanding, on leaving a civil war, without acknowledging who wanted this civil war and who is helping it grow and sustain itself) is a discussion that our government should be having.

[archangelric]

to fredgrad2000 and others:

apparently you have been ignoring Murtha, Biden and others on redeployment.

What they have been saying is for the US COMBAT troops to get out of COMBAT areas and redeploy to NON-COMBAT areas in Iraq or nearby (i.e. to be ready to react if truly necessary) and have the Iraq COMBAT troops do their job. the US SUPPORT troops would stay and support, supply, train, etc.with the goal of being brought home as soon as no longer needed. (Shades if 'Vietnamization')

What's curious is that when these people, and when the US Senate and House of Representatives votes to redeploy COMBAT troops (read the bills, do not assume) you hear the sloganeers of the rabid right in shrill screaming about retreat, surrender, etc. It's really about what role the US should be playing in the otherwise internal affairs of a country.

Point Blank: we do NOT live in Iraq, we should not be telling them what to do; we should be enabling them to do what they want. If they don't want to be a US style democracy, we should not be imposing one (which will only be abandoned as soon as we leave)

[fredgrad2000]

Something along those lines will get our troops out of Iraqi cities and out of Iraq in general, but isn't just retreat home, it is at least a strategy that acknowledges we will face threats after we withdraw and that our "defeat" in Iraq wasn't random, it was a contrived plan by certain enemies (as they have stated explicitly) helped by stupidity in many areas by our government. Redeployment, withdrawal, whatever we call it, may be the best bad option now (and we shouldn't have gone in at all knowing what we know now), but we need to address the aftermath of the withdrawal in terms of the interests of our allies and ourselves...

[fredgrad2000]

Now, I'll answer my own question, and since I don't ever claim to know it all, I welcome comments on the strategy, I just want everyone to acknowledge that withdrawal ONLY is not a strategy and does play right into our enemies hands. Our reployment could occur as follows - we should maintain a base in the Kurdish region (at the invite of the regional government), this will prevent the only functioning area of Iraq from being pressured and overrun by the neighboring governments that hate them, Kuwait should continue to house a credible military presence for rapid reaction to Al-Qaeda or Iranian moves, we should for a while continue to keep 2 carrier battle groups in the Gulf - to deter Iran from pressuring the Gulf nations and keep air attacks ready against actionable intelligence on Al-Qaeda cells in Iraq. A special forces presence in Jordan (which we have had all along) should be maintained for action in Anbar on specific terror cells. We should continue pressuring diplomacy on Iran related to nukes, and should continue our goal of pressuring the moderate Arab states to engage Israel while forming them (as much as possible) into a counterweight to Iran in the region; a force that will support peace with Israel under conditions (unlike Iran), support a democratic Lebanon, and oppose Hezbollah...

[fredgrad2000]

Same as always, I get nothing but rhetoric to the same question I post that none of the screaming lefties can ever answer because they know the answer but don't like it...I am not saying not to redeploy or that the situation isn't a low-level civil war (and yes, low-level is correct based on number of deaths, there are not 2 armed forces facing each other in daily urban military battles), but that we KNOW that to create the current condition was the expressed strategy of our enemies in the region (Al Qaeda and Iran); to make Iraq ungovernable and kill enough US soldiers in the process to convince us to abandon the fight; then once we leave they will have their objectives (Al-Qaeda, safe areas in the heart of the Middle East from which we know they will strike out from, Iran - a government primarily under their influence next door and us bloodied sufficiently to ensure we won't have the stomach, no matter how valid it MAY become - hopefully not - to take action before the Central Bank of Terrorism obtains nukes). My point is NOT that we shouldn't redeploy, but there has to be more to that approach than just retreat and more ad nauseam complaints about how we got in there...where are we specifically redeploying to and what is our strategy once we're out of the "Civil War" to limit Iran and Al-Qaeda's "victory"; we know they want more once they get us out; how do we limit what they can do in the region if we redeploy?

[changeit4]

This column is exactly the kind of journalism the GOP warmongers need to read: a direct, connect-the-dots account from their delusion to reality. It's their only chance to figure it out.

[glidescube]

He's the number 2 front runner for the GOP? I guess the Reps WANT to lose the White House in 2008.