April 4, 2007

Iraq To Expand Security Plan

The new surge security plan in Iraq has performed so well, the Iraqi government will now expand the strategy to Mosul, where Petraeus first conceived it. The results in Baghdad have Iraqi officials optimistic enough to start ending curfews and removing concrete barriers:

Iraq says it is extending the current security drive beyond Baghdad to areas outside the capital.

Efforts to bring the security plan to the northern city of Mosul began on Tuesday, officials said, and Baghdad's outskirts would also be targeted

Officials have expressed optimism about reduced sectarian violence in Baghdad, and have decided to ease the curfew.

How well has Petraeus's plan performed? Moqtada al-Sadr fired two of his deputies for not leaving a banquet when Petraeus arrived. Salam al-Maliki and Qusai Abdul-Wahab represented Sadr's faction in the Iraqi National Assembly, at least until they broke bread with the American commander.

Petraeus used some of the same strategy and tactics in Mosul during the initial months of the war, which makes the expansion of his new strategy to the city somewhat ironic. Mosul citizens protested when Petraeus rotated out of Iraq, and their concern was well-founded. Without his counterinsurgency genius, the city fell prey to a lower-intensity version of the sectarian warfare that has plagued Baghdad.

People don't expand failures, at least not on purpose. The new strategy has made inroads against the insurgents, and the Iraqi government has recovered the momentum. The only thing that can stop them is an American Congress more invested in failure than success.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Iraq To Expand Security Plan:

» Surging Expansion - Coming to Mosul from The Crimson Blog
Over the past few days (here and here) I’ve been trying to point out the many positive signs coming out of Iraq the past couple of months. The new Baghdad security plan is gaining momentum. In fact - it’s going so well, that the Iraqi’... [Read More]

» 2007.04.05 Iraq/Surrendercrat Roundup from Bill's Bites
Video: ABC News says the surge is working in some parts of Baghdad Allahpundit Security ops in Baghdad have chased some of the scum into other provinces, with the result an increase in violence last month outside the capital and [Read More]

Comments (14)

Posted by LamontP [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 7:35 PM

This is great news. Rolling out the security plan one city at a time, the entire country will be secure in no time.

Posted by onlineanalyst [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 7:44 PM

We don't even have our full troop-surge strength in place, and the snarking has begun. Tell me that
this piece
isn't a prime example of partisan "journalism" vested in failure.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 7:47 PM

Sounds like classic "oil spot" counterinsurgency (why, oh why must we keep reinventing the wheel?).

Just as in sports, momentum is important in war. Right now, it sounds like we've got some going, and Petraeus seems intent on building on it. If we can keep it going, the militias and terrorists are going to start having trouble finding recruits, and we'll sweep up more and more of their hardcore elements as increasing numbers of Iraqis feel like siding with the government.

It's too early to say for sure, but it may be that Lincoln has at last found his Grant.

To anybody interested in COIN, I would like to recommend Lewis Sorley's A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam (Harcourt, 1999). Sorley discusses how Gen. Abrams, Ambassador Bunker and CIA's Bill Colby crafted a COIN strategy for Vietnam that was tremendously successful by 1972... just in time for the dems to pull the rug out from under South Vietnam.

We're in the same race with the same people: we've got to win before the Benedict Arnolds sell out Iraq.

Posted by conservative democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 7:53 PM

The neo-cons wouldn't know reality if it punched them in the mouth. More killing, more bombings, more billions, the insurgency will never give up. Right or wrong they think they are fighting a foreign invader, this war never ends.

Posted by vnjagvet [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 8:05 PM


Sometimes, the past is the future. I remember when Abrams became Westmoreland's number 2 while I was in country. He took command right after I left. Things changed. He was a no-nonsense commander and a realisitic one as well.

He used what he had, and used it well.

A great General and a great man.

Posted by Bitter Pill [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 8:14 PM

"The neo-cons wouldn't know reality if it punched them in the mouth. More killing, more bombings, more billions, ...."

Good times, good times.

I hope they bomb and kill 'em back to the stone age.

Posted by LamontP [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 8:45 PM

We need televised reports daily from Baghdad (and soon from Mosul) showing life getting back to normal. Fox News should be doing a much better job of backing up their supportive commentary with hard news. The other networks should be challenged to do more than report body counts. They all need to get out of the Green Zone, now that there are safe areas to report from.

Posted by jr565 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 8:48 PM

“Evacuate all houses in the area around the Americans’ base for we shall attack it soon… Those occupiers will soon be gone from this land. Who will protect you then?”

These were roughly the words in a leaflet the “mujahideen” distributed in Adhamiya a few days ago.
(This is from Omar Fadhil in Iraq) http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/04/baghdad_report_heavy_armors_in.php

Pointing out that bit of propaganda by the insurgents and freedom fighters or mujahadeen, because it points out the dynamics of this war which the dems and libs are blind to. The so called freedom fighters are in fact the ones targeting the Iraqis at this point, not the Americans. They are waging a terror campaign on Iraqis who they are trying to subjugate, not make free, and as they make known it is the Americans who are protecting Iraqis. All this talk of the insurgents as freedom fighters is poppycock, unles the idea of freedom fighers means to fight against someones attempt to gain freedom. But it does raise a good question, soon the occupiers will be gone from the land (far sooner if the dems have their way). Who will protect them at that point? What happens after the occupiers leave? Are the libs even thinking that far ahead? The dems talk about how there isn't a military solution but that this has to be fixed politically, yet there is no political solution if we pull out and the govt implodes.
It's a good question. Wish those advocating cutting and running were thinking about the implications of that question and letting us know what happens were their counsel to be followed.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 9:27 PM

We are far from the action. But inside a great learning curve.

Wars aren't down now, like they were done "conventionally."

And, even if Bush went in to take out Saddam; and then hoped that the House of Saud would get to increase its powers ... That's not what's happening on the ground at all.

General Patraeus shows ya that our military can grow them the way it did in WW2. In spite of the swivel chairs. He's doing what needs to be done in Iraq. And, he is now getting Maliki's cooperation, to boot.

We talk about our own electins, coming up in 2008. But Iraqis, too, will be going back to the polls. Way more educated next time, too.

What's possible? If Iraq can grow strong; and iran can lose it's party of nuts; who hang on to power, visciously. But who might have caused a drop-off among the youth ... to follow what had been a religious replacement for a middle-class ... The Mideast CAN end up looking lots different. If there was a peek hole we could look thru. To see what's ahead in 50 years.

The House of Saud? It's got 63 "contendahs" for the throne. It's spent a fortune to inculcate "whahabbism." And, so far? Doesn't look like they're getting paid off so good. Because? It's the sunnis who have massive headaches in gazoo. jordan. And, eygpt.

And, even though we can't tell the difference between syrians and other sunnis. The power plays are such that they are playing on different teams. Same game? But not the same jerseys.

And, it's very competitive stuff!

Lebanon sits as a basket case. While Israel just discovered that Merkel went to bat for her! Abbas screamed up a storm. (Article appeared in the Jerusalem Post). Abbas was furious that all Merkel would do was to say "Shalit gets returned FIRST." So, he's accusing germany of siding with the Jews.

I've noticed the same thing from the Poles. Countries you thought that would never heal and mend. Yet, do. While England goes to hell in a handbasket. What's not queer, is now mosque-bound. Hardly likely to make a "queen's showing." Unless it's all a gay parade.

Ah. Today. I heard the best answer to "Bring our troops home." SO WE CAN SEND IN THE NUKES.

All kidding aside. Iraqis want American help.

There's even a story that someone "complained" about the $8-billion that got stolen; that had been brought in to cure the country of its lack of electricity.

Well? You can't stop the theives, unless you begin by reporting what was known for years. Too much of uncle sugar's money went down the drain.


Things are looking up.

By the way, the propaganda flyer? About "evacuating your houses, because the Americans are leaving?"

Sure beats yellow food packages that resemble cluster bombs. And, it beats what we used to put into those packets! Peanut butter!

The other thing? Most people living in Iraq belong to one tribe, or another. Everyone has "distant relatives." It's a much more connected society than what we're used to seeing, here. Which also means when the tide turns, and General Patraeus gets cooperation; we are able to put on the ground, what the german's saw, when we landed on D-Day. Following D-Day, what we were able to send into europe were the supplies that had tanks and trucks lined up from the french shores, all the way to germany: Bumper to bumper.

the irrational man in Iran? Who sez he's winning?

Assad? Syria's still weak.

Jordan? Halfway down the garbage shoot.

ANd, eygpt? Capable of blowing like a zit. (Or? Mubarak will be like Castro. Not quite dead. But dead. With gimmicks to fool the people.)

Tha animals in gazoo? You think Tony Baloney Blair will send the 15 sailors there for "rest and recuperation?" Do you know what Tony Blair just lost? He'll leave office in a dingy. The "operator" to watch is Merkel.

Posted by Mr Lynn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 10:42 PM

It's encouraging that General Patraeus is doing such a fine job, but I'm concerned that too much is hinging on one man. If I know this, so do the terrorists. One sniper could turn optimism into despair. I sure as hell hope the good General knows what he's doing when he takes those marketplace walks.

President Bush in his press conference yesterday pointed out that we cannot leave Iraq a failed state, ready for the Islamists to take over and plan the next attack on us. What he should say, in addition, is that we cannot let the oil wealth of Iraq fall into the hands of Al Qaeda (or for that matter, Iran). It is "all about oil" in a more fundamental way than the Left has ever imagined. These goat herders would not be much of a threat without lots of cash, and oil means cash to them.


/Mr Lynn

Posted by Lew Clark [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 2:04 AM

But General Abdul Pelosi has not fired her last shot. She's fresh from her counter-surge planning session in Damascus. Can her trip to Tehran be far away? Vietnam was lost, not on the battlefield, but in the halls of congress. Those "heady days" burn strong in the hearts of America's enemies on capital hill.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 6:16 AM


Thanks for the info. From what I've read, Abrams was a helluva good general: tough and hardcharging, but also thoughtful and willing to think outside the box. How different history would have been had he, not Westmoreland, been COMUSMACV during the first years of the Vietnam War.

conservative democrat wrote (April 4, 2007 07:53 PM):

The neo-cons wouldn't know reality if it punched them in the mouth. More killing, more bombings, more billions, the insurgency will never give up. Right or wrong they think they are fighting a foreign invader, this war never ends.

What do we see here?

First, it's obvious (as if we didn't already know) who the real enemy is in cd's mind. It aint the terrorists: it's the dreaded neo-cons. If liberals like cd hated the terrorists half as much as they hate conservatives, there'd be no talk of withdrawal from Iraq: there'd be a push from the left to use nukes to exterminate the bastards.

One also has to wonder if there has ever been an enemy of our country that cd and his fellow travelers wouldn't have surrendered to. He's made the terrorists into giants with unstoppable determination; we're helpless before their onslaught. Might as well surrender now and start preparing for dhimmitude, because if we can't beat them in Iraq (after all, THEY will never give up, but it's obvious that we will), then we won't beat them anywhere. Guess we'll have to wait for them to attack us here where we aren't foreign invaders.

Thing is, we've faced determined enemies before. While the Japanese were in a class by themselves, the Germans, North Koreans, Red Chinese, North Vietnamese, VC, etc, were hardly a bunch of creampuffs. Yet we beat them all (except the North Vietnamese, and I believe we would have beaten them if not for the democrats). Why, then, can we not beat the terrorists?

Unfortunately, there exists a strain of weak-kneed "Americans" who will always be willing to knuckle under to foreign enemies. We know from the history books that there were cd's running around during the Civil War, preaching the same message of defeatism (ironically, for the same political reasons). There were cd's present at the birth of our nation, when his Tory ancestors actively collaborated with the crown against the patriot cause. There were cd's in New England during the War of 1812, pushing for secession and refusing to fight in "Mr. Madison's War" against Britain. cd's grandparents goosestepped along with Fritz Kuhn in the '30s and later carried portraits of Stalin around in the '40s and '50s while telling us how pointless is was to try to stand up to the unstoppable juggernaut of Soviet communism. Watch Vietnam-era war protests, and you'll see cd there, waving a VC flag and praising Ho Chi Mihn while assuring everybody who'd listen that American GI's were babykillers.

I don't know where these people come from, or why they decide that their country is helpless at best or the villain at worst, but the sad fact is that we're stuck with them. We saw in '75 what happens when they get control. God save us from a repeat.

Posted by Bostonian [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 4:01 PM

"Conservative" democrat:

So in your mind, if a tiny minority wants to terrorize the rest of the population of a country and prevent them from forming a democracy, there is nothing that *anyone* on earth can do about it?

... Not the majority of the inhabitants of that country with the aid of the richest, most powerful country on earth?


Posted by Mr Lynn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 10:32 PM

Great post, docjim505!

Of course the danger with the Quislings who stand in the way of every effort to defend the nation is that they sometimes succeed, as in the early '70s, in undermining the effort. They damn near have succeeded now.

Why? Not because they are so strong, but because the President is so weak. He has been unable to control the fifth column in the bureaucracy, which leaks classified information like a rusty bucket. He cannot even stop members of his own party, let alone the traitorous Pelosi, from consorting with our enemies.

The Democrats may not yet have the votes to pass a funds cutoff and override a veto, but with turncoat Republicans they may not be far off. Then watch all hell break loose.

A stronger President would have Miz Pelosi thrown in jail upon her return, for violating the Logan Act. George W. Bush is just shrugging off her escapade and hoping against hope that General Patraeous can pull the Presidential chestnuts out of the fire.

Just imagine an America run by Mrs. Bill Clinton and Miz Pelosi, and watch while they make google eyes at terrorists smuggling atom bombs into the United States.

/Mr Lynn