Centerfield: What's Wrong In Iraq, and a Better Plan For Fixing It: The Militias (UPDATED)

January 12, 2007

What's Wrong In Iraq, and a Better Plan For Fixing It: The Militias (UPDATED)

Since roughly a year after the invasion, I've been saddened to watch as militias grew stronger and militia-related violence has grown slowly worse and worse. A year after the invasion is when the US patched up a mutual nonviolence treaty with al-Sadr, the chief of the biggest and most dangerous militia. Since then, al'Sadr's and other violent militias have been largely umolested so long as they confine their attacks to Iraqis. Coalition forces have, as a matter of deliberate strategy, left confrontation of violence and ethnic cleansing entirely to Iraqi forces (sorry, river), to be undertaken once they were sufficiently numerous and trained.

I've felt all along that that was a mistake, because I feared the Iraqi forces were going to be too weak for large-scale confrontation with violent militias for years, and thus Iraq would be largely vulnerable to ethnic cleansing and every other kind of violence for those years. Many provinces have turned out fine, but the results in Baghdad and a few other spots have turned out even worse than I expected. Both the current Iraqi government and its predecessor have al'Sadr and other Shi'a militias as political partners, and thus faced political problems if they cracked down. That meant hardly any cracking down at all on Shi'a militias like al'Sadr's.

Baghdad (though not so much the rest of Iraq) has gotten violent enough that Iraq has become a place to run away from. Iraq was briefly a destination, for returning Iraqis, but now they're leaving again, due to security concerns. This is just one of several reasons I'm glad to see a plan being developed for what will have to include action against militias.

So why have the militias become so big? Well, though they do give themselves some political and religious cover, it looks to me like the biggest reasons militia operate with increasing force are the same underlying reason as unchecked bullies anywhere else in the world: because they can, and because it's fun and profitable (especially notice the complaints about the oh-so-religious al'Sadr spending money on parties). And, not joining can bring a perceived threat to family. If our FBI wasn't going after crooks, the Mafia would've ruled our streets for decades (centuries?). Just like they do in Baghdad.

It looks me as though their growth pattern (within Baghdad, note!) has been mostly been slow and continuous. Certainly, their impact in terms of the Baghdad violent death rates (sad how the militias don't send numerical updates in to stats agencies) shows a mostly continuous slow rise, with scattered, temporary spikes, since the invasion of Iraq.

I don't think the death data support the early-96 sudden al'Qaeda / insurgent provocation theory suggested by the President. We do see a slight spike, but that's all. Another reason I think the President got it wrong was that shortly after the Samarra bombing, I read this interesting post which said order had been restored.

The President's other statements on causation make more sense, though restrictions on our troops for targeting violent militias seem like a more of a clear problem than inability to patrol every major streetcorner:

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.

We never tried securing Baghdad with just the rule change. That's important, because it leads to my plan.

So if I'm carping about the President's plan, what's my plan? Well, the most important element actually is the same: change the rules to make reducing the most dangerous militias a goal to be planned for and executed. The differences are that fewer additional troops would be needed (could be wrong, since I'm not a military planner), and that instead of tying up resources patrolling Baghdad, the Coalition would devote its efforts to getting al'Sadr and other dangerous militias off the streets (no doubt some patrolling would be involved, but I'd expect more raids on our terms and fewer waits in streets for things to happen). And there'd be far less need to worry about exposure to bad cops and soldiers, of whom there are no shortage in Baghdad. It'd still be risky - just IMHO less risky than the surge and faster. Note that the high incidence of bad cops in Baghdad rather mirrors the high incidence of bad cops in spots like Medellin, Columbia, where power on the street has rested with gangs; one key to my plan is that I firmly believe that cracking down gangs in Baghdad will lead to reductions in Iraqi police and army corruption. Then we can go back to handing things over.

Bill Roggio seem to be thinking along similar lines. And the surge operation has started well - contrary to my fears, al'Maliki agreed to serious attacks on Shia mlitias, though rumors of the operation already starting seem not to be true.

UPDATE: Victor Davis Hanson also feels that the rules of engagement have been the biggest problem in Iraq, including "...the pass given the militias...". In fact, I'm amazed to agree with this much of a Hanson essay. Except, of course, for his sillinesses about Carter and the straw men about the war opposition, especially about how we're all just wusses today compared to the past. As I've noted before, antiwar sentiment was much stronger in the 1930s.

Posted by Jon Kay at January 12, 2007 09:07 PM

Comments

Well Jon, I am not sure what to make of your post. Sadr was given some latitude because he rejects Iranian domination. No Shiite Leader was going to walk into power without the support of militias. We could trace the problem back to lawlessness and the need for militias to begin with, or even further to Bush 1. I believe Bobby has explained that getting Sadr is like the spoof appearing on the Daily Show last night. One use A to get B and then get C to get B and then knock off the last letter. You have tribal leaders, religious leaders, militia leaders, foreign leaders. The game of chess must be particularly vexing.

I would cut off black market gas supplies and really protect the oil. Somehow, the oil must be shared. We should also be showing that AQ is the hunted and those that help aid sectarian violence and terrorism from abroad fall under "material support" and begin countering it. The Democrats are upset about this. Huffington Post claims Bush's Iraq policy is all about attacking Iran. This is just slanting the obvious. There will be no peace in Iraq while Syria and Iran stoke disorder.

As far as Bush's strategy, he claims he has the green light to confront ALL militias. This is the big question. Getting Sadr off the street means preventing him from setting up shop elsewhere.

I think Bobby also addressed the infiltration problem and Bush is putting more embeds into Iraqi forces. The Kurds are helping go after Shia and Shia are going after Sunni insurgents.

Of course, central problems were totally disbanding the army and rejecting military requests for sufficient police resources to be ready BEFORE the invasion. Thanks Rummie. Ricks summarizes our failure well and let's face it; Bush really botched this up.

I am glad to see that the Baker surrender was rejected. I find it supremely ironic that I am actually pulling for Bush to make this work. I vote Democrat so far and find Bush more than disturbing. I will hold his possible blowing our readiness to oppose Iran and Hizb'Allah as his greatest mistake, but that is yet to be seen.

Some think that Bush is killing two birds with one stone. First, if it works, his plan will better Iraq. Even if it doesn't work, he has bridged Iraq to Iran by linking actions together. He has put Fallows in charge (Navy) and behind the scenes is readying more hardware for the Gulf. Patriot missiles slung under F-15, new inventories of missiles and bombs, Raptors designed for Iranian air defenses, even new Raytheon cruise missile defenses. I think there is a greater chance of our hitting Iran before 2008 than the Chargers winning the Super Bowl.

Nothing will change the fact that Republicans did not oversee and judge the Iraq invasion from the start. There is little coverage now about where some of Saddam's nuclear research went to after our invasion (Syria, though Israel claims alot is buried in Lebanon). Every day that Democrats ignore, NK, Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria, Russia, Iran, Sudan, Nigeria, China is another day I wonder why I would let them lead our security. They have grown use to opposing. If Bush can deprive them of Iraq, they will be forced to face the myriad dangers ESCALATING against us in the world (not the result of BAD AMERICA) and the West. Can they keep it going to 2008 and make it five years of missing the boat? Bush or not, there is no excuse for this behavior, as evidenced by the weak responses by Democrats to Bush's speech.

Posted by: Maxtrue at January 12, 2007 11:04 PM

Maliki will not deliver on confronting/disarming militia in Sadr city. I think the media and many folks are getting duped on the idea that he will deliver on this. I'm disappointed even bloggers I trust like Captain's Quarters seem to have absolute faith that Maliki is somehow going to do exactly what he says with tough talk.

When he fails to deliver, he will get pushed out. I think the U.S. government already knows he can't deliver and is planning for exactly this.

Maybe then the surge plan can work.

Posted by: Susan at January 13, 2007 02:49 AM

Maliki

And Clinton is on her way to speak to him. She had only a small press release critical of Bush. Does this put Democrats in the position of rejecting the surge as our troops start cleaning up Baghdad? What Bush did was predictable as well as the Democrats propensity for circular firing squads. My rooting is for Bobby and I share the frustration here with those who have watched the bungling and would rather we take our gloves off than go home defeated. This is Iraq, not Nazi Germany and we certainly didn't flee that fight.

Posted by: Maxtrue at January 13, 2007 08:53 AM

Well Jon, I am not sure what to make of your post. Sadr was given some latitude because he rejects Iranian domination.

So, Max, you're saying that killing, ethnic cleansing, and general violence are OK if you reject Iranian domination? We have a responsibility to keep order in Iraq. That rather trumps building blocs against Iran in this case.

And, I'd say his help is the kind we don't need. The Bush Administration has made a big point of specifically trying to build a liberal, free and democractic bloc to outcompete Iranian extremism. Al'Sadr is against all of those things. There's REASON we and Iran are on the opposite side - we're for liberty, they're for religous tyranny, and so is al'Sadr. Allying with theocrats only makes sense in places we're giving up on for the nonce as theocratic. No, he and other violent, theocratic Shi'a militias leaders are our enemy as much as Iran is.

As for how you hunt the militias, it boils down to the same way the Coalition forces deal with the vast numbers of ever-changing Al'Qaeda and opposition groups, or how the FBI deals with the many branches of the Mafia: they choose the most dangerous groups or men at each moment, and decide what the easiest way is of taking action against each. Same way as any kind of planning: make priorities, and figure out the best way of acting on them. Refigure your worst militias and militia chiefs every week or so, and figure out what the easiest things to do in the next week are. It seems to work, because, as I pointed out earlier, unless I do try to deal drugs, I feel unthreatened by gangs. Is it easy? No. People don't join the armed forces or FBI because they want easy jobs.

Posted by: Jon Kay at January 13, 2007 04:17 PM

“So, Max, you're saying that killing, ethnic cleansing, and general violence are OK if you reject Iranian domination? We have a responsibility to keep order in Iraq. That rather trumps building blocs against Iran in this case.”

I disagree. It is my belief that we went to Iraq for the following two reasons. First, we went to prevent Saddam from deploying wmd on delivery systems making his eventual removal more dangerous. Second, we anticipated his planned escalation in exploiting the terrorism network as his adversaries in Syria and Iran are doing. The first reason evaporated after finding little evidence for wmd although there is some intelligence that indicates the most important wmd materials were removed from Iraq and headed West. Saddam certainly thought he was making progress and repeatedly told his cabinet he would go full bore once sanctions were lifted. As far as the second point, there are numerous documents and audio recordings of Saddam’s cabinet meetings. They indicate Saddam was interested in the terror network as well as reconstituting his WMD as soon as France and Russia conspired to lift sanctions. Even Putin confirmed Saddam was more eager to use terror against the US as he realized we were going to invade. He was after all aware terrorists were in his country and Saddam was funding Hamas terror.

The idea we were going to break the Islamist mindset with a good dose of Liberal Democracy was not borne out by facts. It wasn’t an omission that there was little security contingencies in phase IV. This administration obviously considered removing Saddam as a gift great enough to expect a real effort by Iraqis to unite. The next threat was seen as Iran and Syria, which we did ask for quo pro quo with We did not attack security threats across the Syrian border. We removed Saddam and Iran’s enemy insurgents assembled in Iraq. From the start these two nations conspired to create enough death in Iraq to drive us out and their influence in.

I disagreed with our strategy, and felt far more could be gained by actually having Iraq proper and really disturb the Jihadists by a budding Democracy in their midst. Once Bush agree with this strategy he had the obligation to move quickly to implement the needed tactics. He did not. I will point out however, that the Left bitched for years how Bush was planning to create a puppet government and build 26 bases to steal Iraqi Oil. Isn’t it strange we find an almost hostile government and oil being used to support the very terrorists who want to drive the US out? Do I read any retractions on Kos? There is zero accountability from thousand of Kossack bloggers brought together by the mutual desire to see the US fail. We have a responsibility to eliminate our Jihadist enemies. Stability is Iraq is a tool to achieve this aim, but is not secondary to the aim of defeating enemies.

“And, I'd say his help is the kind we don't need. The Bush Administration has made a big point of specifically trying to build a liberal, free and democratic bloc to out compete Iranian extremism.”

Again, Bush might have made it a big rhetorical point, but in fact, he is moving in only the last few months to use better tactics. At this point, what we do and in what order, has been affected by three years of mistaken tactics. As Bobby pointed out, it is hard to demand much of Iraqis now after many of the decisions we made helped to create this mess. One reason that Sadr is still around is that he wasn’t working with AQ or Iran. If we meant to send a message to terror/intelligence networks and the regimes that supports them, then Iran’s and Syria’s involvement in Iraq is a big issue. Sadr called for one Iraq and has supplied a degree of security in the post-invasion vacuum. I am not defending him, but the vast majority of Muslims support the Islamist concept of a world dominated by Shia Law. I never heard Bush claim that we would make Muslims secular and it is the Iraqis that oppose guaranties to all Iraqis for sharing in the oil wealth.

“Al'Sadr is against all of those things. There's REASON we and Iran are on the opposite side - we're for liberty, they're for religious tyranny, and so is al'Sadr”

Again, this is far too simplistic. The newly elected representatives in Iran have issued a strong rejection of their President. We are in conflict with the regime in Iran. Many of Sadr’s supporters do not support his killings and perhaps that is one reason he has been laying low.

“Allying with theocrats only makes sense in places we're giving up on for the nonce as theocratic. No, he and other violent, theocratic Shi'a militias leaders are our enemy as much as Iran is.”

That might be true, but Iran is still far greater a threat. There are many Sadrs but there are not many enemies who can crank out fingerprintless weapons and can enrich uranium it seeks around the world. Iran cannot now seek uranium in Somalia and the greater game trumps convincing Iraqis right now to stop killing each other. These are security issues of different degrees despite their being related.

“As for how you hunt the militias, it boils down to the same way the Coalition forces deal with the vast numbers of ever-changing Al'Qaeda and opposition groups, or how the FBI deals with the many branches of the Mafia: they choose the most dangerous groups or men at each moment, and decide what the easiest way is of taking action against each.”

Agreed, and those intelligence people in Iraq tell us that there must be a deliberate, cautious and calculated approach to taking the militias out. Certainly we can’t start shelling urban areas WITH the consent of the government or the Iraqi forces willing to hold the sanitized areas. What we could have done two years ago, is not what we can do AT THIS MOMENT.

“Same way as any kind of planning: make priorities, and figure out the best way of acting on them. Refigure your worst militias and militia chiefs every week or so, and figure out what the easiest things to do in the next week are. It seems to work, because, as I pointed out earlier, unless I do try to deal drugs, I feel unthreatened by gangs. Is it easy? No. People don't join the armed forces or FBI because they want easy jobs.”

This is what is going on. You need loyal troops (here come the Kurds) and you need to embed and have effective counterinsurgency operations. Iraq has been poorly directed, but I think we should be real about what our mission was and has become. This cannot, nor is this equivalent with preventing other adversaries from supporting terror, proliferating wmd and threatening our forces and our assets with WMC. This is the bigger picture. I also believe Bush is moving to be able to strike Iran and pin Syria from involving itself with Israel once Hizb”Allah provokes Israel. We have a list of things to do and convincing Iraqis to embrace Liberal Democracy is not at the top. One thing is for sure, Iraq isn’t building and deploying WMD anytime soon. They have already been given the basic opportunity to find a greater peace than they had with Saddam.

Posted by: Maxtrue at January 14, 2007 11:08 AM

quid prop quo, not quo pro quo.....LOL

Posted by: Maxtrue at January 14, 2007 11:10 AM

quid pro quo, not quo pro quo.....LOL

Posted by: Maxtrue at January 14, 2007 11:11 AM

Sorry for the typos Jon, long night.

should have been: "can't shell urban areas "WITHOUT" the consent of the Iraq government..."

should have been: "Stabilty in Iraq is a tool to achieve this aim, but is not more important than the aim of defeating out enemies"....

Posted by: Maxtrue at January 14, 2007 11:22 AM

Part of the bigger picture

Sadr keeps low

the bigger picture with Syria