Coalition forces continue to strike in the Qaim region on the border with Syria. While prior operations in and around Qaim mainly consisted of airstrikes with ground raids being secondary, the recent strikes along the border appear to be primarily ground raids, with air support being used to destroy weapons dumps and safe houses after the mission ends. Two missions in the region over the past two days indicate this may become more common out west. In a raid on Al Abu Hardan, five terrorists are captured and a major weapons cache is uncovered:
Coalition forces raided a suspected al Qaeda in Iraq terrorist safe house near the town of al bu Hardan, northwest of Al Qaim on Oct. 21. During the raid, five terrorists were detained and a large cache consisting of weapons, ammunition, mortars and bomb making materials was confiscated in the safe house. Intelligence sources and tips from local citizens led Coalition Forces to the location. Coalition air assets, using precision guided munitions, destroyed the safe house and weapons cache after Coalition Forces departed the location.
In a raid in the town of Husaybah, twenty terrorists are killed and one is captured, and five safe houses and more weapons caches are discovered:
Coalition forces raided two neighborhoods in Husaybah and discovered two large weapons caches containing small arms, ammunition, rocket-propelled grenades, mortar rounds, explosives and bomb-making materials that included radios and detonators, the statement said.
The soldiers destroyed a car bomb found near one of the buildings, and Air Force planes then used precision-guided munitions to destroy the “safe houses,” the military said.
Both raids are credited to an increase in local intelligence. The possible change in operations can be chalked up to the success of Operation Iron Fist. The Marine outpost on the border in Husaybah has been bolstered by the establishment of bases in Sa’dah. There are now two Marine battalions in the region where once there was one, giving the Marines greater operational flexibility to execute ground raids. These raids will further improve the Coalition’s intelligence in the region as the safe houses and ammunition dumps are picked over for information.
49 Comments
http://myopr.com/articles/2005/10/22/ap/headlines/d8dd7av00.txt
Saddam complains of being targeted by current government officials. Isn’t it a little ironic that he says a leader should be able to do this for the sake of the country when he is the leader but now that he is out of power the government (the democratically elected one) has no right to act to target dissidents or keep the peace.??
A little off topic, but if you like serious discussion about the War in Iraq (like Bill always provides) two other bloggers have good posts today that are well worth taking the time to read.
Glenn at Instapundit has A RATHER RUDE ANTIWAR READER
TigerHawk has Al Qaeda in Jordan and the battle for Iraq
What happens to the weapons cache’s?
Do we just destroy them? Or do we or the Iraqi army just take them, inspect them, and use them?
It would be better to use them, as not only do the terrorists lose these weapons, but we gain them, for a double-benefit.
Kartik,
I think they are usually and unstable weapons.
Also, how close are we to the ‘brink’?
By ‘brink’, I mean a time where US casualties become permanently lower?
The positives are that there is an election in December, and the Iraqi army is growing in size and competence.
The negatives, however, are that US troop deaths are not dropping at all yet. October has already seen 51 hostile fatalities. I know the arguments about how the Battle of the Bulge and Okinawa were very near to victory despite large casualties, but than analogy cannot be used indefinitely.
So, how close are we to the brink? 3 months? 12 months?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/22/AR2005102200562.html
Here’s a good story from the last two days about Zarqawi. Some speculation on where he is, how he moves, how he communicates. They think he is in the Euphrates Valley area somewhere. Worth reading.
ikez78,
It was posted in the previous thread as well. Some things I agree with and some things I don’t from the article. I think Z-man is trying to bring the decentralized jihadist networks across the world under his command, but I also think that he needs a base like Anbar in order to make what he is trying to do sucessful long term. And, if the US cleans out Anbar and shuts down the Syrian border the jihadist network will be left leaderless once again as Zarqawi will either have been killed or will be hiding in the middle of nowhere where he can’t have much operational control like Bin Laden today.
Kartik:
U. S. casualties aren’t dropping in raw numbers, but keep the context in mind: We’re involved in several active campaigns. One would think that the numbers should be going way up, but they’re not.
As to how close we are to the brink, keep this in mind too: There’s no way that anybody anywhere in the world can predict how long it’s going to be before we defeat the terrorists in Iraq. It simply has to be done, and that’s all that matters.
Tom W,
Haven’t we been involved in active campaigns all along? At least for the last 12 months?
If what you say is true, then when the campaigns end in the next 2 months, there should be a rapid drop in casualites.
The bottom line : if we really are making progress, something has to give, soon. If this rate continues for another 9 months, then it is hard to claim that we are making progress. It would appear to be more of a stalemate.
Tom W.
When it comes to US deaths the IEDs are the big killers more then even active campaigns. As long as US patrols continue and some Sunni for 100$ can place an IED by the side of the road the death count won’t breach the below 30 a month level that I think is necessary to get the US media to shut up about Iraq. The one thing about insurgent wars you learn real fast is that death counts aren’t that good a predictor of how an anti-insurgent campaign is going.
U.S. Troops Maintain High Morale in Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051022/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_troop_morale
“Others say the toll of two and even three tours in Iraq in as many years has dwindled the number of those who will remain in the military and drained confidence that their work was making the United States safer.”
This is a quote from that Yahoo story. Funny how that quote (AGAIN) runs completely contrary to record rates of reenlistment. More media bumbling.
“Skeptics say morale is propped up because of soldiers’ limited access to news – newspapers on many bases throughout the country are sparse, and weary soldiers often head straight to their trailers after missions instead of plodding to check the latest nationwide news at Internet centers.”
Unnbelievable media arrogance. These people have the nerve to say that troop morale would be lower…if only these damn soldiers would watch our newscasts. Unreal.
The media is committing treason and sedition. They are doing more to undermine the national security of America than a bunch of illiterate Muslims are.
Given the threat to national security, the CIA and Pentagon should reprimand the media decision-makers who exhibit to most flagrant examples of violation.
Ok, here is another question.
Syria is a troublemaker. They were complicit in the assassination of Hariri, and are allowing jihadis to cross into Iraq.
What if the US just took a quick, surgical military strike and destroyed a lot of their airforce, tanks, etc. This would NOT kill many Syrian soldiers and would NOT kill civilians. But it would cause Syria to lose all the money they spent on those planes and tanks, and would really teach them a lesson. They will stop their meddling, and would be much weaker due to the loss of their war apparatus to begin with.
The media, the UN, etc. would scream about Bush’s imperialism, but as very few people would have died, it would be over in about 2 weeks.
Why not? How could they retaliate in a way greater than they already have, particularly after the loss?
Kartik,
I think your well-intentioned but a better response would be to fly into Syrian airspace and whipe out the Hamas, Hezzbollah, Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda training camps and offices in Damascus. This is their center of gravity. I have read numerous reports of many training camps being out in the open for air strikes in Syria of all of the above mentioned factions.
ikez78,
Ok, that then.
We can first offer 3-4 serious warnings. Then, we can go make a case the the UN. This time, France might be on our side for a change.
After/if that fails, we strike. Problem solved. None of the countries that border Syria are particularly sympathetic to them at this point, so there is nothing they can do to retaliate.
1. If they attack Israel, they have a problem, as they have been beaten 2-3 times already.
2. If they launch an all-out invasion of Iraq, they will be summarily defeated in days by the US.
3. If they continue helping Jihadis, then we have the justification to hit them harder. But they won’t do this, as this approach has a very poor ROI for them.
Kartik,
I think this U.N. report might put Syria in more hot water than any direct military action by us. At least that seems to be the position of Condi Rice. The U.N. is meeting Tuesday to discuss that report (Hariri killing) and I am sure that the issue of harboring terror camps will come up…again.
ikez78,
But what happens? More talks? We had talks over Saddam for 12 years, and talks over Syrian occupation of Lebanon for 24 years….
The UN does not have any particular desire to dismantle Hamas or Hezbollah, so they won’t do anything.
A surgical US strike will teach’em. If the Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad people then go to Iraq to fight the US, not only is Israel free of the, but we can finish them off in Iraq.
I wonder how much larger our combined Anbar presence is today than a year ago. I would think it has to be in the tens of thousands.
I agree that we should. I am just explaining why I don’t think we will. Numerous reports on http://www.worldtribune.com and other sites just reported high level meetings in the Bush administration concluded that military action won’t be taken against Syria. I wish we would, but I am just telling you what I’ve read from sources who have been reliable in the past.
Kartik:
The tempo of our campaigns is way up in comparison to six months ago. More actual combat, especially the house-to-house stuff. If our casualty rate is the same as when we weren’t out there knocking down doors, it seems to me that we’re doing something right.
Justin:
The media will get more shrill, more treasonous, more pro-terrorist the closer we get to victory in Iraq. It’s what Walter Cronkite did after the Tet Offensive. He realized that the North Vietnamese had shot their wad, so he got on the air and announced that we had lost the war. I don’t think they’ll get away with it this time, but it’ll be a “d*mn close-run thing,” as Wellington said about Waterloo.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/23/ixportaltop.html
The “left-wing” media here is a traditionally right-wing newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch. If it is true that 82% of Iraqis are against the occupation, what is the point of staying in Iraq?
vuc,
Of course most Iraqis don’t want us there. Most Americans don’t want us there. But, the average person on the street doesn’t get to decide foreign policy in either Iraq or the US for good reason.
The only winners from an immediate US withdrawl would be Iran who would rush in with thousands of troops and take over Southern Iraq and al-Qaeda who would have a long term base in Western Iraq. The middle of the country would be a war zone where hundreds of thousands would die. Imagine how much the world would suffer if the network Zarqawi is building right now is allowed to thrive and continue to build for the next decade.
What is odd is how the anti-US fanatical left is so devoted to opposing America and supporting ANY enemy of America (from the VCong, to the USSR, to Al-Qaeda).
Yet…
They can’t actually admit their true goals. If they are so convinced that their goal is the more noble, worthy one, they why be so ashamed of revealing it? Why hide it, if it is a worthwhile goal?
The best analogies: the USAAF in WWII and the defeat of the U-boats by Britain, Canada, and America.
The B-17 campaign looked like a failure right through the end of 1943. Shortly thereafter the Luftwaffe fell apart once it became the priority. Bombers hit essential factories, fighters were unleashed upon the defenders. The break was so abrupt it is hard for modern readers to understand the transformation.
It was pretty much a ditto for the end of the U-boat menace. In about three months ( spring of 1943 ) the U-boat dropped out of the war: called home due to losses.
Today, in Iraq, everything is in slow motion. That’s an essential feature of media-arms conflict. Because it takes time for people to forget…to adopt the new media narrative… the tempo is paced.
The pivot point in media-arms conflict is when the story line is broken: when the locals have taken over the low intensity battle and it is not longer Americanized.
Constant improvements in the ISF are like the technical improvements against the U-boats: they seem never quite enough to transform the battle — until…WHAM!… they do.
The cross over can’t be too far away since the ISF is increasing its power exponentially and we are now in prime campaign weather. You haven’t seen anything yet.
PS Note how quiet things have become in areas now under the watch of the Iraqi Army.
OT
Witness to Testify Against Saddam Sunday
OT
Results of votes for the Iraqi Constitution
#23 vuc
The Iraqis want us gone… when it’s safe for us to leave. They’re smart enough to know that if we leave too soon, they’ll pay for it with their lives. This poll is just more European condescension toward Arabs. We were told before the war that as much as Iraqis hated Saddam, they’d fight to the death to defend him because they hated us–the western invaders–more. Wrong.
Lots of people think that Iraqis are too primitive and tribal to know what’s in their own self-interest. I disagree: They didn’t fight for Saddam because he was a murdering dictator, and they know they need us there until they can stand on their own.
By the way, the Kurds want us to stay in Iraq permanently. They want us to build bases in Kurdistan.
STRYKER BRIGADE UNCOVERS HUGE WEAPON CACHES NEAR EUPHRATES RIVER
Gentlemen, I dont believe we need to attack Syria right now, although I would love it if we bombed the hell out of known terrorist training facilities just for fun.
I think that once there is an elected government and the Iraqi army is up to snuff, Syria (hopefully also beaten down by international sanctions) will have to clamp down on cross border incursions. Otherwise Syria will be helping to attack a sovereign nation with a well trained military. It will then be up to the Iraqi government to decide what the potential consequences will be. This will certainly be more palatable to the so called ‘arab street’ and the MSM will have little to chew on. Syria, indeed depends on potential bad press for the US and the potential of roiling the ‘arab street’ to temper our response. A sovereign Iraq circumvents all useful idiots.
The soldier’s morale is up because they are actually there, witnessing the improvements. Many of them realize that the MSM’s agenda does not support them. They, like many of us get their news from other sources, from the horses mouth. Then, look to see how the a*s has digested it. It rarely comes out looking like it did when it went in.
SIGNIFICANT STRIDES MADE IN OPERATION RESTORING RIGHTS
Justin:
Iran’s already winning. They have all sorts of influence in Southern Iraq now which they never had when Saddam was in power. If 45% of Iraqis support attacks, then it’s time to start becoming a lot less visible. But if this poll is correct, it is no longer a liberation at all but an occupation. It’s not smart or morally right to stay in a country for long periods of time when the people want you gone so badly.
Jamison:
These results look correct so far. I wonder if the previous results reported were just incorrect information.
Vuc – If it is true that 82% of Iraqis are against the occupation, what is the point of staying in Iraq?
You have misread the article. Its typical MSM style playing and stretching language. The 82% refers to a permanent presence of Coalition forces in Iraq. 82% of Iraqis may oppose a permanent presence. But nobody is talking about such a presence.
Also – when I asked what is the moral basis for Sunnis to complain about irregularities in the Ninawa voting, you replied wrongly that any such irregularity would be against the spirit of the American invasion. As far as the Sunni moral position regarding the electoral process is concerened, it has nothing to do with the success of the democratization project. They simply have no leg to stand up and complain after they blew up the UN compound preventing the UN from administering the referendum, and they attacked the polling places and continue to attack and kill election officers and those connected to the elected government. The Sunnis simply have no moral position to complain.
#25 Kartik – the reactionary left wants to see America defeated in Iraq because 1- they wrongly blame western civilization for all ills on the globe, and 2- they see America standing between them and their unworkable utopian and ideological goals of ruling over others and achieving power.
Now if in this process they can force the US to cut and run from Iraq resulting in a million deaths due to civil, sectarian, ethnic, and ideological warfare – then so be it, the Iraqis can damn get sacrificed for the leftist’s utopian plans.
And one reason the western leftists hide their goals is because they have no solution to world problems, except for cheap meaningless idealisms like “if only everyone had more love” – and they dont want to appear idiotic to the rest of us.
I dont think we need to attack Syria that will imediatley end our France and UN support and we will again be the bad one making a move on Iran with some UN or EU backup even less likley. However if we just be patient and let the UN sanction Syria this will weaken his weak regime alot. Unrest will grow in the street and from last I heard the offial that “commited suicide” the other day his clan is sereously pissed and evidently they got some clout at least enough to scare the Bashir enough to send the troops enmass just in case. I think we will see coup and the new gov will sell out the terrorist or bashir will sell the terrorist out to save his own skin.
Personally if I was Zarkawi I would be seriosly thinking of relocating to Syria. A weak Bashir or even a coup would put Zark in a position to finanily get his dream a begining of the Caliphate in the Lavent to. The US would be in a bad position, would we invade Syria in the middle of that jumble? Sit on the sideline and watch two enemies beat eachother to death then?
Actually we would be forced to invade letting Zark set up training camps in Syria would be just as bad or worse than Iraq. Syria borders Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Isreal. Either way Hezbollah would jump in pluss the paleo’s groups Hamas Islamic Jihad all would be mixed in Iran would get another 5rs to breath free or they could even try to step up thier interference nothing else they will be heavily supporting thier Hezbolah.
Simply I think Baby Bashir is more worried about his own well being than this or that cause. Once he sees no escape of these sanctions a lot of his inner circle going to the Haig or worse Lebanon for trial, unrest on the street all of these terrorist like Zark settin up shop to take power he will turn on them and in return get a repreive of the pressure from the US. He wont be able to save Syria if the UN makes sanctions with Iraq on one side, Jordan to the south, Turkey north, Lebanon east then a small stip of the Med that a handfull of ships could shut down, they will be absolutley isolated. The pain will come quick for sanctions and the weaker his military gets the more pissed the people get the more dangerous hosting a bunch of Islamic Radical Hitters become. Especially when you yourself wears western suits has a wife that wears makeup not burka’s Sharia is not even considered in the courts. Yeah then it becomes why not help the US get the terrorist at least then you survive whats the flip, stay on Irans good side but risk your death at the hands of the radicals and even if you do survive for what to run interference for Iran when the US decides to take them out? What even Bashir dont really believe him and Iran can take down the big Satan. I would bet Bashir would make a deal with the Devil or even “big Satan” to save his own skin. It got to be getting pretty obvious that Iran’s days are number thier Radical pres is going to mess up its just a matter of when its big enough to even make the EU not be able to deny what has to be done.
Michael Yon delivers, this time from The Weekly Standard – http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/250oxjsq.asp
It is increasingly apparent that the US has informed the other players that ‘mullacratic Iran’ is ‘history’. That is why India walked away from a super scale natural gas long term contract recently.
Syria and Iran have a mutual defense treaty. It is of only psychological merit when fighting the US.
Syria is a side show, and Bush & Co must know that.
The gambit is to neutralize it as much as possible without letting it divert us from Iran.
Iran is on the bubble. The last thing that we should want at this time is to get sucked into cleaning Syria up which would inevitably delay our move against Iran.
Iran is almost certainly harboring AQ elements in Baluchistan. That’s the southeastern region of Iran. Baluchistan is Sunni not Shia. It was a Baluchi Sunni who triggered the first attack on the WTC dead nuts on the second anniversary of the First Gulf War: Desert Storm.
In the meantime Bush&Co are wise to throw the UN a bone with their ‘Colombo’ episode. You know, where the gumshoe knows who the villian is from the get go and only has to link gunsels.
Iraqi Humint + American smart bombs = Lotsa dead terrorists. The insurgents are dead men walking. THEY have already lost. They just don’t know it yet.
hamidreza:
You wrongly blame “The Sunnis” for blowing up the UN instead of a small group of Sunnis (possibily even foreigners) who did it. A small minority of extremists should not be able the take away voting rights from millions of people. The reasons for the war were: 1) disarm Saddam Hussein of his WMD, 2) Bring democracy into the heart of the Middle East.
Objective 1 was not accomplished because there were no WMD. If elections are not going to be fair and objective 2 is not going to be accomplished, then what are we doing there?? If elections are not going to be honest, what exactly is the objective of the war? I realize that you’re probably Iranian given your name and no offence but we did not invade Iraq so as to increase Iranian influence in the country and transform it into tyranny of the majority instead of tyranny of the minority.
However, the most recent results from Diyala province do appear accurate and the ones in Ninawa may also be. It’s possible that the initial vote counts a couple of days ago were leaked by somebody who knew nothing and were innaccurate. There were reports from US soldiers on the ground that they knew of polling stations moved at the last minute (low turnout might be a result of this) and were suspicious of other things but international observers on the ground said that they believed the vote “went well”. It’s possible there was no fraud this time. There was terrible fraud in Ninawa in the January election though when ballot boxes were never delivered to Christian areas by Kurdish pershmerga.
hamidreza:
You wrongly blame “The Sunnis” for blowing up the UN instead of a small group of Sunnis (possibily even foreigners) who did it. A small minority of extremists should not be able the take away voting rights from millions of people. The reasons for the war were: 1) disarm Saddam Hussein of his WMD, 2) Bring democracy into the heart of the Middle East.
Objective 1 was not accomplished because there were no WMD. If elections are not going to be fair and objective 2 is not going to be accomplished, then what are we doing there?? If elections are not going to be honest, what exactly is the objective of the war? I realize that you’re probably Iranian given your name and no offence but we did not invade Iraq so as to increase Iranian influence in the country and transform it into tyranny of the majority instead of tyranny of the minority.
However, the most recent results from Diyala province do appear accurate and the ones in Ninawa may also be. It’s possible that the initial vote counts a couple of days ago were leaked by somebody who knew nothing and were innaccurate. There were reports from US soldiers on the ground that they knew of polling stations moved at the last minute (low turnout might be a result of this) and were suspicious of other things but international observers on the ground said that they believed the vote “went well”. It’s possible there was no fraud this time. There was terrible fraud in Ninawa in the January election though when ballot boxes were never delivered to Christian areas by Kurdish pershmerga.
Vuc – has it occured to you that the reason objective 2 may have been violated in the case of Ninawa is because of the DIFFICULTY of conducting a squeeky clean election while a deadly insurgency is raging?
Elections have to be conducted in less than ideal conditions. It is not infalliable. Yes, there could be Shiites or Kurds running the polling stations in Mosul who have an axe to grind. They have a motive to discourage No voters and maybe even stuff the ballot box (but all ballots are numbered, so this would be very difficult). The insurgency has given these poll workers the MORAL RIGHT to do that when their loved one was blown up by a truck bomb, if not executed by Saddam – at least that is exactly how they feel.
There is no international electioneering or monitoring agency to conduct the vote. SO HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO RUN THE REFERENDUM IN A PLACE LIKE MOSUL?
You seem to be long on criticism, scepticism, and cynicism and short in understanding on-the-ground realities, and attributing each and every failure or misstep to nefarious motives (usually of Americans). And the reason is you want this experiment to FAIL, IMO. So let me ask you to hold your destructive fire, and provide a constructive solution to this problem where centuries long worth of injustice, hatred, exploitation, poverty, and now entitlement claims to the oil, has made a powder keg of this society.
BTW the reason initial votes in Nanawa was skewed to Yes, has already been noted by a few people here. Usually precincts that are peaceful and less split end up counting the votes first and reporting them first. All ballots were counted immediately upon vote close. The predominantly Yes precincts completed their counts first and reported it to the IEC and to the press.
Therefore, given the realities of Iraq, how differently would you run the vote? I dont think you have a method to stop some amount of unfairness to creep into the system.
Vuc – I also heard that at least one Sunni polling station had moved. This can be figured by looking at the precinct and if its vote count is markedly different both in numbers and proportion to that of its neighbors, then it is possible to estimate how many is missing due to this irregularity.
Once each polling station is scrutinized and discounted thusly, we can arrive at a “theoretic count”, which is what the count would have been under ideal circumstances.
If the theoretic count will result in a No Veto, then it would certainly require a revote. So before you lose all hope as to the fairness of the referendum, please give “democracy a chance”.
BTW Objective #1 should be restated in this way: To disarm the rogue and unaccountable state of Iraq of any current WMDs or any potentiality for future WMDs.
Note that Saddam or his heirs (sons) could have demanded their right to develop nuclear energy and enrich Uranium – just like Iran is doing, and which Western leftists support. With the removal of Saddam and the institution of an accountable and democratic state, there is almost no chance that Iraq in pursuance of nuclear energy could build a rogue nuclear bomb.
Possibly a fair article about Ramadi from the NY Times, even ends on a hopeful note.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/international/middleeast/23ramadi.html
Syrian ambassador to US was just on C-Span taking calls. I tried to get in to talk to him but it was busy. This guy was lying through his teeth about everything and it was infuriating to watch (we don’t harbor terrorists, the Hariri report is all lies, Middle East’s prob is Israel’s fault, Bush is evil, bla bla bla). Anyway, callers were calling in and ripping him saying his days are numbered, it was nice. Then some naive woman called in feeling bad for him (obvious victim of leftist media + Bush hatred syndrome) leads to being totally irrational and siding with terror thugs.
c low and hamireza awesome posts
I think Syria’s days are numbered though. While I would love to see those air raids on all those training camps in country.
The road to Syria goes through….
….Cambodia? Just when you think the Vietnam analogies can’t get any more ridiculous, along comes another devotee of the halcyon days of liberalism to tell you there’s more…