‘Surge’ echoes Afghanistan mission
Surge...escalation...plus-up... Whatever you call the "new way forward," when it comes to increasing U.S. troop levels and adjusting their mission, the Bush administration's new plan for Iraq takes a number of pages from an already familiar playbook. Are you ready for this? Afghanistan.
That's right, we have come full circle. The template didn't even begin to work in "the other war" until well into 2006 -- because it was so overshadowed by events in Iraq. Now the same ideas will be tried in an attempt to salvage a situation, in Iraq, that many analysts already see as unwinnable.
Successes in the ‘forgotten war’
Since April last year, U.S. forces in Eastern Afghanistan have made -- for the first time (and this is according to the foot soldiers) -- a big turn in tamping down violence and winning local hearts and minds. After almost five years of war -- and a chaotic situation in the south -- what happened in the east?
First of all, U.S. forces (some 22,000) were able to focus entirely on a limited area of operation, namely, the border with Pakistan, as NATO forces assumed control of the southern provinces. This, in effect, provided a "surge" of U.S. troops in the east.
U.S. forces over the summer and fall, in joint operations with the emerging Afghan Army, launched a series of large sweeps through districts and provinces where the Taliban and al-Qaida had taken refuge. But, rather than pulling out from what had been cleared, U.S. forces STAYED and BUILT.
They set up Afghan military bases in these remote areas and created Provincial Reconstruction Teams that paved dirt roads and rehabilitated destroyed schools. Most importantly, U.S. company and battalion commanders handed out what they call CERP money – from the Commander's Emergency Response Program. That purse was made up of hundred of thousands of dollars that commanders on the ground could dip into and give -- no strings attached -- to local villagers and tribal leaders who wanted to build a bridge or start a small business.
‘Clear-Hold-Build’ strategy
Fast forward to the "new way forward" in Iraq. Bush is expected to announce Wednesday that he will send 20,000 more troops to Iraq – that’s very close to the number of U.S. forces now in Afghanistan. A series of joint U.S.-Iraqi military operations will attempt to clear insurgents and militiamen from a number of flashpoints in Baghdad, and then (and this is new) HOLD those areas with a long-term U.S. and Iraqi presence, perhaps up to a year.
And, as in Afghanistan, the "economic'" component in Iraq is emerging as critical. CERP money will be an important weapon in U.S. commanders' arsenal in Baghdad, as it has become in the towns and villages of eastern Afghanistan.
There is a point where the Iraqi template stops cloning the Afghan one: U.S. forces in Afghanistan do NOT have to deal with the horror of sectarian violence in their theater. The fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban is not complicated by dozens of Sunni or Shiite bodies being tortured, murdered and dumped in the streets on a daily basis.
But it is striking that the new Bush plan for Iraq does seem to apply -- not only the lessons of previous failed operations in Baghdad (like Operation Together Forward) -- but also the lessons of counter-insurgency successes in the so-called "forgotten war" in Afghanistan. There, as in Iraq, the local populace had to have something to LOSE by siding with the insurgents. There, as in Iraq, the "enemy" had to be cleared out -- and KEPT out -- before any nation-building could begin.
Will it work?
No one knows if this strategy will work -- or whether it's already too late for any U.S.-imposed plan to succeed in Iraq. What can be said is that U.S. soldiers in eastern Afghanistan have told us they've seen a "tipping point," over the past six months, and believe that -- finally -- they are winning, at least in their sector.
The new crop of U.S. generals will soon be in place in Iraq who, it is said, "get" the "clear-hold-build" strategy and the need to fight equally on the economic and political front lines. But...will it work?
Jim Maceda an NBC News correspondent based in London who just returned from extended assignments in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Soldiers in Iraq respond to Bush's plan
EMAIL THIS
advertisement
Slide Show
- Life beyond the violence
Suicide attacks and murders due to sectarian conflict continue around Iraq. See how residents live their lives amid the attacks.
Read the Nightly News blog
Mr. Maceda I have been watching you for many years and have confidence in your opinion.
Right after the Election there was an article in the Miami Herald stating that Saudi Arabia was threatening that if we withdraw from Iraq they will start funding the Sunni's. Very soon after this was mentioned in Newspapers and on T.V. news shows Cheney made a trip to Saudi Arabia. No more was mentioned about this story and I can't understand it. Everyone is asking why the Pres. is not taking the Generals advice or the Iraqi study group and other well informed people regarding the history of these people and there repeated fighting each other. I wonder if there was some kind of deal made that the President feels he needs to keep. After all he and his family has been close friends with Saudis for many years. What do you know about this or think about this.
Bobbie Heiman Coral Gables Florida (Sent Jan 10, 2007 4:44:36 PM)
Thank you Jim - very very much for finally relying on the words of the men and women themselves on what is truly happening in Eastern Afghanistan. Go to the source - the soldiers - to find out what a difference they really have made and continue to make. Thank you again for including the men and women who really know whats up!! My son is there and will be glad to hear at least one person has given credit where credit is due!
Laura (Sent Jan 10, 2007 4:48:11 PM)
Why is it that we feel we are any better than the people in the Middle East? Middle Easterners are not the only people who have a history of fighting each other repeatedly.
Look at America, we fight each other every day. Look at Canada, which has almost come to blows over the East/West differences. Look at Britain, and the fighting of the IRA. Look at China, and the bickering between them and Taiwan. Or the Koreans. Or Bosnia, Croatia, Somalia, Sudan. Humans have a history of fighting each other, regardless of religion or nationality. We will always find something to fight about.
The Iraq study group itself gave the option of sending additional troops to Iraq, so in a way he is following their advice. They gave several options as to what could be done.
Even though Saudi Arabia is the originator of Wahabism, one of the most extreme forms of Islam, America has almost always been on good terms with them. Not just Bush. Clinton as well. Saudi Arabia is also the homeland of Osama, and many of the 9/11 hijackers. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy and itself does not have the best human rights record. Why are we friendly with them? Because we depend on them as one of the largest suppliers of oil in the world.
It is also the site of Mecca and Medina, the Kaaba is there. It is the voice of Sunna Islam, and for all of those reasons, a very important country to stay on friendly terms with.
Not only that, but we don't want them to begin funding the Sunna insurgents like Iran is funding the Shi'a insurgents. Then, what you really have is a true war between Shi'a and Sunna, via Saudi Arabia and Iran, and fought on the soil of Iraq. Who wants that?
http://tlocfym.blogspot.com
T. Mitchell (Sent Jan 10, 2007 5:58:56 PM)
Jim I talk with a young man from Afghanistan who is studying here at Ohio University almost weekly. He is here on a Fulbright and is getting an advanced degree in communications. He has 4 children and a wife and a very large family in Afghanistan. He talks with them weekly. They report that the Taliban is gaining far more power and influence. They are shocked by the increase in poppy production. They also believe that if the U.S. does not supply more guidance and funds that the Taliban will continue to grow in power and influence.
In regard to Iraq the majority of Generals, the American soldiers and people and the Iraqi people all say NO NO NO NO to the escalation. What we do know is that the Bush administration does not care what we think or how we vote. They have had a regime change agenda from the moment that they came into office. Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neil describes this agenda in the book "The Price of Loyalty". Come hell ( it certainly is hell for the Iraqi people) or high water the Bush administration is implementing the Project for a New American Century's agenda, along with the paper "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" written by Richard Perle, David and Liv Wurmser for Netanyahu. They want Iran..they want Syria, they want Lebanon......They want control. This is a fight for oil and for Israel!
These right wing radicals do not care how many Iraqi people are killed or injured, They do not care how many Iranians are potentially kille if there is a pre-emptive strike, they do not care how many Lebanese were killed by Israels invasion.
Kathleen Galt Athens Ohio (Sent Jan 10, 2007 7:56:11 PM)
Kathleen,
While it is sweet that you care about all of the Irani that could possibly die in a pre-emptive strike if they were attacked. But, do you realize how many American soldiers have died due to explosives and training that has come from Iran already? Or perhaps the many Lebanese died under the control of Iran's Proxy Hamas?
Iran is not some innocent nation. They have been at war with us rather we like it or not since the 1979 revolution and the coming to power of Khomeni. A nation who has scoffed entirely at the international communities requests for transparency of their nuclear ambitions, while simultaneously openly declaring their desire to wipe an entire nation off of the map.
While you say that the 'right wing radicals' don't care about how many people die...do you care about how many people would die if Iran nuked Israel? Or if Iran had it's way with Iraq and purged it of Shi'a?
I for one, care about any who die, regardless of creed or color. However I would rather see thousands die today than millions tomorrow.
http://tlocfym.blogspot.com
T. Mitchell (Sent Jan 10, 2007 10:05:18 PM)
Instead of countries spending so much money on war, US and world leaders need to be paying more attention to the 2002 Millenium goals, one of which is to combat world hunger. According to the Borgen Project, approximately $300 billion has been spent on the Iraq War while there is a $19 billion annual shortfall to achieve the plan to end world hunger.
Renee, Seattle, Washington (Sent Jan 10, 2007 11:36:34 PM)
Why are hundreds of Iraqis being killed every month in Iraq? Extremists are murdering each other over religious differences. Why are extremists murdering each other over religious differences? Because each believes the other has no right to be. How does one stop this from happening? How did we change radical beliefs in the US. We had a civil war over slavery, thirty years after Europe outlawed slavery and it still took 100 years before blacks started getting their civil rights. Sunnis and Shias have been killing each other for thousands of years so don't expect change in your life time. Replacing an evil dictator in barely the first step towards peace in Iraq. The second step is getting the Iraqi people to want it bad enough to do something about it themselves and the US ain't gonna make that happen this or the next decade. What we can do is protect the peace until their government can do it for themselves and unfortunately that is going to take more than 150,000 troops in a city of 3 million let alone a country of 25 million.
I'm looking forward to seeing how we stop the flow from Syria and Iran and start taking out terrorist support groups. It's about time the Air Force got back into the fight.
Tim Peterson Corvallis, MT (Sent Jan 10, 2007 11:37:55 PM)
Err- would that be *the* Afghanistan, were *the* Taliban was "defeated"- uhmmm- *years* ago?
Sorry if i sound sarcastic. But- while it may sound sooo much like success, the assessments of British experts regarding Afghanistan have not been very optimistic, to say the least.
As for "my own" guys- i.e., the troops of the German KSK- it may be of some interest (if not revealing) that my Governement does not even find it neccessary to provide me with *any* details of exactly what they are doing there, or what achievements (if any) there are.
But considering that we are talking about a war which supposedly was successfully concluded years ago, i have to say that the idea of "...finally starting to work" or some such thing sounds a wee bit- err- *hollow*...Who are you kidding here???
Josef Balzer Askeaton Ireland (Sent Jan 11, 2007 7:46:21 AM)
I feel sorry for the soldiers who have to follow the amoral and unethical orders passed down by George W. Bush.
I totally support these men. However, they are being used by evil men for selfish purposes. I hope my words and actions can help speed their return from this useless attempt at nation building.
Sean, Torrington CT (Sent Jan 11, 2007 3:10:53 PM)
To Mr. Tim Peterson:
Your wishes may come true yet. And you- along with every one else- will live to regret wishing for that.
After the attacks on 911 took place, tens of thousands of people in Iran staged a silent vigil in honor of those who were killed in the attacks. They held up signs saying things like "This is not Islam" and "The Prophet forbids this".
Bomb them, and their attitude will change completely.
They will learn to hate the US, and the west.
Whatever about their government- it will be those people which will be hit. And they will never forget that. Neither will the rest of the world.
Josef Balzer Askeaton Ireland (Sent Jan 11, 2007 4:02:12 PM)
T. Mitchell wrote that Iran is at war with the U.S., on the contrary! American foreign policy has been blatently biased against Iran.
It was embarassing to the U.S., what the Iranian's did in 1979-1980 Embassy takeover. We have made them pay ever since: 1. Support of Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war, including turning a blind eye to the atrocities of Saddam Hussein against the Kurd's and Iraninians(Chemical warfare). 2. A U.S. led embargo for the last 26 years, how long is enough? 3. Is Iran anymore guilty of ignoring UN sanctions on nuclear treaties than Israel?
It's time to start talking to Iran, lift the embargo.
There can't be a lasting peace in Iraq without Iran's influence with the Shia.
J. Patterson Minneapolis (Sent Jan 11, 2007 4:05:12 PM)
J. Patterson,
Do I need to remind you that every Friday during prayers in Iran it is quite common to hear them chant "Death to America, the Great Satan!"? Are those the kind of people that you would want to just say, "Oh, it's ok, that's cute. Let's be friends..really...come on!"
Or if you would like to talk about Atrocities committed during the Iran Iraq war, how about Khomeni giving children the 'keys to heaven' and making them swallow bombs to become suicide bombers? Or perhaps the wave upon wave of civilians they had run across mine fields to clear the way for tanks? Not enough? Ok...how about their openly expressed aims to destroy America and their Zionist ally, all the while building nukes in their back yard? How about the Irani backing of many major terrorist attacks against US assets around the region?
Iran already uses their influence with the Shi'a in the methods of Muqtada Al-Sadr. Irani explosives and training have been and still are responsible for American deaths. So, in actuality the only way for there to be lasting peace in Iraq is taking out Iran's influence with the Shi'a.
I have little love for Israel. I believe that the things they do are on par with the same things that Hamas has done to them. They spied on us and stole nuclear technology from us, they have went back on their own commitment to finding peace with Philistine.
I would say that the US led embargo on Iran will be long enough when the people of Iran finally get tired of it and make serious changes to their government. Such as: Not paying the families of suicide bombers, not openly threatening the US, not propogating proxy wars through Hezbollah and the 'Militia's' in Iraq, not barring the use of high-speed internet in their country, allowing people to dance and listen to western music if they so please...you know, freedom?
Our policy has been biased against Iran for exactly what I stated before, they are a country that is at war with us, and they have openly said that. Do you remember the people who didn't listen to Hitler as he said he was going to take over the world and then followed through with his plans? That is what happen when you try to have a diplomatic solution with a mad man who's express intent is regional domination and war.
http://tlocfym.blogspot.com
T. Mitchell (Sent Jan 12, 2007 3:24:01 PM)
I still love you, Jim Maceda! Thank you, again, for your fine reporting and analysis. I hope you will contribute to this blog more often. You are a real class act in the world of broadcast journalism.
Laurel Noel, Leonardtown, Maryland, USA (Sent Jan 12, 2007 4:35:15 PM)
When will we Americans wake up and come to terms with the fact that our government is practically clueless when it comes to foreign affairs in the Middle East. It took us three years to realize that we'd been taken for a ride with misinformation and bad strategy that got us into the war in Iraq. Today the situation is far more complicated and yet here we are again pushing for a military solution. There appears to be no depth or sophistication in the thinking. How can our esteemed leaders possibly believe that surges of any sort can have any useful outcome when practically anyone with common sense can see that adding military force will only serve to inflame and embolden the various factions? The Iraqis deserve more than our reflex actions to keep throw bigger punches at the problem. Our politicians are playing dangerous guessing games that people are paying with their lives . Our foreign policy is deeply flawed; we know it, the world knows it - the government has had that proved to them. A wise leader would concede that fact and look to others for alternatives. But instead of consulting some of the best minds in the international community for appropriate and sustainable solutions, Bush and Co are still decision-making in the paradigm that put us in hot water in the first place.
J. Dias (Sent Jan 13, 2007 6:31:59 PM)
SEND A COMMENT
PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to this post, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.