WASHINGTON, Aug. 28, 2008
U.S. To Hand Anbar Province Over To Iraqis
Former Hotbed Of Insurgency Now Deemed Safe Enough For Iraqi Forces To Keep Control Alone
-
Photo
An Apache helicopter provides air support as a U.S. Marine takes aim after being fired upon by insurgents in Iraq's Anbar Pronvince in this February 2, 2007 file photo. (Getty Images)
-
Interactive
Battle For Iraq
The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
-
Photo Essay
Week In Iraq Photos
A daily diary with scenes of the latest attacks and snapshots from the effort to rebuild a nation.
"There aren't a whole heck of a lot of bad guys there left to fight," Gen. James T. Conway, the top Marine Corps general, said Wednesday.
A ceremony marking the Anbar turnover is expected to be held Monday, several U.S. and Iraqi officials said. Each spoke on condition of anonymity because the Iraqi government has not yet announced it. Anbar would be the 10th of Iraq's 18 provinces to be returned to Iraqi government control, a step toward phasing out the American combat role as Iraqi security forces grow more competent.
The developments in Anbar have additional resonance because the province once was synonymous with the worst violence and lawlessness unleashed in Iraq following the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
The turnaround in Anbar is all the more dramatic for what it might mean for Afghanistan, the fight that has in some ways supplanted Iraq as a front-line battleground. The diverging trends make it likely that a U.S. buildup in Afghanistan will follow a drawdown in Iraq.
Conway said he learned on a visit to Anbar this summer that violence remains low and the 25,000 Marines there are doing more rebuilding than fighting.
"Quite frankly, young Marines join our Corps to go fight for their country," Conway said. "They are doing a very good job of this nation-building business (in Iraq). But it's our view that if there is a stiffer fight going someplace else ... then that's where we need to be."
That place might be Afghanistan, he said.
Speaking at a Pentagon news conference, Conway said the top American commander in Anbar, Marine Maj. Gen. John Kelly, believes fewer U.S. forces are needed to keep the peace. He said Kelly has proposed cutbacks to his superiors, but Conway declined to give specifics, saying only that the current number of Marines there is excessive.
The remarks by Conway, who is responsible for Marines' recruiting, training and equipping but not their use in combat, are an additional sign of the likelihood that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, will recommend soon that troop withdrawals resume this fall. Petraeus has been assessing the overall security situation in light of the withdrawal of five Army combat brigades earlier this year.
There now are about 146,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and 33,000 in Afghanistan, according to Pentagon figures.
The Petraeus recommendation, which is expected to be accepted by President Bush, is important not only for its implications in Iraq and for its potential impact on the presidential contenders' debate over Iraq but also for its connection to what U.S. commanders call an urgent need for more troops in Afghanistan - perhaps as many as 10,000 more.
The U.S. military is stretched so thin by the two wars that it cannot send significant additional numbers of combat forces to Afghanistan until the numbers in Iraq have been reduced. Conway likes the idea of sending more Marines to Afghanistan, but only if they thin out in Iraq.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates earlier this year dispatched more than 3,400 Marines to Afghanistan, including roughly 1,200 to serve as trainers for the Afghan forces.
The trainers are from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment. The other unit there is the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which is fighting in the south. They already had their seven-month tours extended until the end of November. Conway said he would not rule out another short extension for a "small segment" of the Marines.
Marines have been the primary, but not only, U.S. force in Anbar since spring 2004. It represents a major commitment for the Marines, who are rotating so frequently into and out of Iraq that they typically get only seven months between deployments.
As recently as 2006, Anbar was the deadliest province in Iraq for American troops. Toward the end of that year, however, the Sunni Arabs who were leading the insurgency in Anbar decided to join hands with U.S. forces to fight the extremist al Qaeda group, and violence levels plunged. In early 2007, U.S. forces wrested control of the provincial capital, Ramadi, from the insurgents.
Now Anbar is one of the quietest parts of the country, with Iraqi security forces in the lead.
The timing of Anbar's return to Iraqi control has been in doubt for months. In January, the top commander in the province said the turnover would be made in March; it was then pushed back to June. Initially, U.S. officials blamed the June delay on a sandstorm, but it became apparent that the Iraqis and Americans had second thoughts about going ahead after a suicide bomber in a police uniform killed more than 20 people, including three Marines, in the town of Karmah, 20 miles west of Baghdad.
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Video and Galleries from Iraq After Saddam
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: July 6?July 12
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: June 29-July 5
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: June 22 ? June 28
- Latest in Iraq After Saddam
- Bombs Claim 50 in Iraq
- Biden Meets with Key U.S. Leaders in Iraq
- Senate Investigates Blackwater Subsidiary
"Billions of tax payers dollars" Where did you get that made up number?
We have not provided "Billions" of tax payers dollars to tribal leaders in Anbar.
Very Naive Nancy,
You need to check and see how many convoys are run each day within Iraq, not focous on the convoys with goods. The soldiers that did transport food and goods are now conducting combat partols. So you claim that supplies arriving by air reduces the chance of an IED is false. The target changes from a supply convoy to a combat patrol.
Senator McCain already has his eyes on two issues he considers more important, Iran and Georgia. He should probably be looking at Pakistan where after Musharraf stepped down there are rumors the coalition ruling Pakistan is is collapsing. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are both in Pakistan along with the Pakistani nuclear arsenal. Why are al Qaeda and the Taliban so strong in Pakistan? Could it be that the Republicans, President Bush and Cheerleading Senator McCain chose to run all the wars on a shoe string. Being undermanned for a strategy to surround and capture key targets in Afghanistan including Osama Bin Laden, those targets took advantage of the opportunity to escape to Pakistan?
Senator McCain has ignored the needs in Afghanistan for over a year. The Generals knew better. Senator Obama was listening to the generals and he knew better. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was listening to the Generals and he knew better. The Secretary of Defense was listening to the generals and he knew better. Very recently even President Bush finally listened to the generals and responded. Only after all of this did Senator McCain concede he was wrong and additional troops were needed in Afghanistan. Yet Senator McCain can still look the US public in the eye and claim he will chase Osama Bin Laden to the "Gates of Hell". Beware Senator McCain has yet to state when he would start the chase and how long he expects the chase to take.
"Top Marine eyes shift from Iraq to Afghanistan
Officer: Anbar handover could free up troops to fight rising Afghan violence"
Months ago the Marines lobbied Sec''y of Defense Gates to be given the Afghanistan assignment and that the Army be given the Iraq assignment. Their lobbying efforts seem to be continuing. Is that because they believe Afghanistan is winnable? Is that because they know the people that attacked the US are in or around Afghanistan and not in Iraq? Is that because the Afghans want our help and the Iraqis really want us to leave?
McCain wanted to go after Iraq before the dust settled from 9/11 and before we had any idea who was behind he attack. Cheerleading Senator John McCain was selling the diversion of resources into Iraq even though he knew Osama Bin Laden was in or around Afghanistan. Does that sound like a man committed to chasing Osama Bin Laden to the "Gates of Hell"? Instead of a chase is sounds more like a slow mosey with weekends and holidays off, only as long as something more important does not come up.
Just amazing how a sackfull of greenbacks will turn a bad guy into a good guy.
But the price is cheap.
Now Mitt Romney''s 5 sons can avoid military service just like Mitt did.
You need to check and see how many convoys are run each day within Iraq, not focous on the convoys with goods. The soldiers that did transport food and goods are now conducting combat partols. So you claim that supplies arriving by air reduces the chance of an IED is false. The target changes from a supply convoy to a combat patrol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by ArmySGT5 at 08:08 AM : Aug 28, 2008
Wow, you seem to know everything going on in Iraq, no matter what the region. That''s pretty good considering most of the Leaders there don''t know whats happening down to the convoy level. How are you able to get all of this detailed information? It might help people like Nancy to understand the situation better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by BlameGovt at 08:46 AM : Aug 28, 2008
You never explained your "BlameGovt" name yesterday when your party the Republicans have been running the government for the past 8 years (6 years for Congress). Are you saying the party in power is the problem, there shouldn''t be any government (military, etc), or just picking up on a theme you heard?
I just believe that we needed to leave Iraq on a positive note and not a foasco like Vietnam. But it is time to leave very shortly.
I just believe that we needed to leave Iraq on a positive note and not a foasco like Vietnam. But it is time to leave very shortly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by BlameGovt at 08:55 AM : Aug 28, 2008
That was my next thought. I like the name, just curious. Some names explain themselves, others seem to have different meanings.
Could it be that we have only financed a large number of insurgents that will soon revert to a combatant roles due to false US promises and failed US diplomatic efforts in Iraq to achieve the benchmarks the Republicans, President Bush and Senator McCain negotiated with Congress AND PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNED INTO LAW? Making the "SURGE" only the latest abysmal failure of the Bush/McCain team in Iraq. A failure that is leading to resumption the Iraqi Civil and the genocide predicted if the President and Senator John "Surge" McCain were not allowed to conduct the Surge. How many lives were lost civilian and military as a result of the surge? How many more lives will be lost as consolidated and rested factions reengage in the conflict the surge only temporarily suspended?
"Billions of tax payers dollars" Where did you get that made up number?
We have not provided "Billions" of tax payers dollars to tribal leaders in Anbar.
...
Posted by ArmySGT5 at 08:08 AM
Then how much did we spend at $300 / month / INSURGENT along with a guarantee of employment at the end of their service? Do our soldiers get guaranteed employment at the end of their service? Sounds like a pretty good deal for an enemy of the US. Rumors from Iraq are that it may be backfiring -- those expecting guaranteed employment are learning that the US is leaving and the Iraqi government has blocked or excluded even more of them from future government employment in Iraq. Their chance to participate in provincial elections (as they boycotted the first election) was first delayed and canceled this year. Their share of Iraqi Oil revenue for regional development not enacted into law by the Iraqi government.
Posted by BlameGovt at 08:46 AM : Aug 28, 2008
No you just got fooled by the Bush/McCain propaganda machine again --- The first Mission Accomplished banner was even considered a mistake by many Republicans. So you raise it again! Did you believe McCain when he said we had succeeded in Iraq. Check out the posts below -- You and McCain both own a equal shares of Bush''s staged "Mission Accomplished" gaffe.
see Posted by misha128 at 09:17 AM
and Posted by misha128 at 09:16 AM
The US most certainly did pay the tribal leaders of Anbar province in hard cash & weapons. That was a key element of the "surge."
Given the fact the gov''''t "lost" billions in Iraq, it''''s really hard to say where it went.
Those tribal leaders did not stop fighting due to their love for the US.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 09:25 AM
Small Correction Col MacFarlane''s pre-surge initiative (falsely claimed by Senator McCain as part of the Surge despite the fact that time line shows that Col MacFarlane actions came before the surge was ever announced let alone considered started by the Republicans even months after that).
Posted by Nancy_Naive at 06:54 AM
Maybe not -- see the following posts
see Posted by misha128 at 09:17 AM
and Posted by misha128 at 09:16 AM
Actually, I believe it was Iraq that supplanted Afghanistan. Remember Afghanistan? Bin Laden, Taliban, 9/11? Any of that ring a bell. That stuff that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with? The war on terrorism that was started before Saddam and his WMDs (right) stole the spotlight? Anybody remember that? Anybody?
Anybody?
Bueller?
Actually, I believe it was Iraq that supplanted Afghanistan. Remember Afghanistan? Bin Laden, Taliban, 9/11? Any of that ring a bell. That stuff that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with? The war on terrorism that was started before Saddam and his WMDs (right) stole the spotlight? Anybody remember that? Anybody?
Anybody?
Bueller?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by rf35 at 09:53 AM : Aug 28, 2008
Yes, I seem to remember a short story about that on page 5 of the papaer.
And after that we can hand bush back to Texas.
Months in the planning for this to be one
of the headline hammers to help McCain
nail down the election and
next to Obama it looks like
a Britney Spear''s report.
It is happening now.
Sorry about the war. I was never for it and still do believe that some of the people who conspired to unleash this unholy thing on you are going to spend their eternity in Hell.
Speaking of spending though, the current group of political puppets that you have running your government now are in the process of reeping huge oil money profits. I am skeptical these revenues are not going to end up in the hands of people who already have more than ten generations of their families can spend. Since I, along with a lot of other Americans, have driven ourselves nuts working all the time to provide the tax money our dictatorship, I mean government, spent attacking your country, I would like some repayment taken out of the oil revenues, that will surely be going to rotten individuals anyway, used to repay some of the debt burden the next 500 generations of Americans have incurred.
Thanks,
An American Taxpayer
Way to go Iraq! It''s about freaking time they started taking the reigns.
The US went into Iraq in shame, and will leave in shame.
That the Pentagon paints themselves as heros does not change a litany of lies.
Way to go Iraq! It''''s about freaking time they started taking the reigns.
Posted by spadeisspade at 03:00 PM : Aug 29, 2008
spadeisspade is still looking for WMDs...
-
by ioweign
August 30, 2008 2:36 PM PDT
- Success in Anbar. As President Bush has always stated, when the Iraqis are able to step up we will step down.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 32 CommentsIt is happening now.
Posted by mbcsmith at 09:59 AM : Aug 29, 2008
As soon as that $300/month they are paid not to attack us stops, the Iraqis will step back down...