How Basra Slipped Out of Control: by Gareth Porter
POSTED BY: Howard
UPDATED: Thursday, October 27, 2005 15:21
VIEWED: 10359
PAGE 5 of 6
Quote:
Originally posted by Tweek128:
First off, Menk = Mencurian, however you spell it. Folk from Man-Chest-Ah.
The term is Mank = Mancurian, petty, perhaps, but I understand Mank
.Secondly, I'm not from Manchester... not even close... You’re thinking of Howard...
Seriously, please don't confuse us.
Used to live in Hull for a bit, which is about as close as I've ever been to Manchester...
Quote:
By your reasoning, that which is lessening in, say, Mosul and other cities and is increasing in Basra (institutional and popular resistence to the "occupiers") could be said to be the fault of the British, since it was taking place in U.S. administered areas. Sorry, no joy. I know you want to blame the U.S. for everything, but when it's not in our sphere of control, that tack falls short.
Actually, I don't want to solely blame the US. I'm trying to point out that the problems in Basra and Iraq in general are not caused by these silly lax Brits.
Yes, I blame a lot of the current level of violence and the fast proliferation of Insurgencies after the occupation on the abysmal American military policies.
Yes I think that the problems in Iraq would be less if the American military had adopted a more British approach, rather than, as usual, arrogantly assuming theirs was the best way, and ignoring these crazy Brits and their prior experience.
Yes, the Brits lax policies are now helping the violence to proliferate. But the situation is not as simple as your assertion of, American hard-line policies are saving Iraq, and British lax policies are sending it into chaos.
Yes American troops do shoot first and ask questions later. Not only have innocent Iraqi civilians been killed in this way but British troops have too. This is going to anger people. The widely and continuing abuses of prisoners is going to anger people.
You say the locals are working with the US against the Terrorists, but who do you think a lot of these terrorists are? No matter how much our authorities want to play it down the insurgencies do comprise Iraqis. Yes they are the extremists amongst the population.
But Hard-line policies have a way of pushing people to extremes.
I'm not saying that American policy is entirely at fault. You are saying that the problems of Iraq are being brought under control by American hard-line policy, and this is being messed up by British wishy-washy techniques.
No, I don't see that as being the case.
Quote:
There, we've worked with the police to make sure that no undesirable elements make it in. Obviously, that was not a high concern of the British authorities in Basra.
The Americans have cases where families have been unnecessarily slaughtered. By your reasoning the deaths of families is not a major concern for the American authorities.
Quote:
If you're not aware of this, it's because you're reading articles that have a vested, ideological interest in presenting the news in as harsh a light as possible. If you're interested only in hearing the negative aspects, fine, well and good, but don't act like you're interested in anything else or that you'd care if there was any positive news.
Actually I read a lot, on both sides of the 'fence'. I also often watch and read the BBC, which is a news source I'd hold above anything in America for impartiality.
If you want to read nothing but good reports and attribute any others to the failings of the British, all fine and good, just don't act like you care about the truth.
There are actually many reasons besides yours for any falloff that may be experienced in American deaths.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, that was at Howard. I saw his "I'm enlightened" schpiel earlier and found it funny that a Mank was going on about how worldy he was since he was A. British and B. had lived in three cities in the U.S. If he lived in Miami, I don't know how he could think that the U.S. was essentially racist. And I don't know where Hull is, truth be told. But then, you probably don't know where Davenport or Council Bluffs are off the top of your head.
I was gonna use the truth line earlier, but danced around it. You seem pretty sharp, so let's do better to avoid the ad hominem shall we? I mean both me and you, so don't think this is asking this only of you.
I see an acknowledgement that the U.S. is not "solely to blame" and I think that's good. We're not. But given how Basra was held up before as how things should be done, and given the situation there now, I think it's rather clear that the way the rising Shia theocrats were "handled" (which is, not at all)was less-than-ideal.
As for the idea that most of the insurgents are locals, I'd agree that the heads are, but I believe most of the current crop are foreign fighters or holdovers from Saddam's regime and their sympathizers. If you've read some of Michael Yon's reporting, that would seem to be the case.
Also, to cite a sign of U.S. success, look at the bombing of the Palestine hotel. Iraqi security/army stopped the attack from achieving the higher death count that was intended. Only one U.S. soldier was involved. Could this have happened in Basra? Or would it be a police element conducting the attack?
Infiltrators were a problem in Sunni areas, but vetting techniques were stepped up, and more tasks are being left in ING and local police hands. We just take care of the big stuff.
And I don't want to turn this into a purely U.S. vs. U.K. thing, but, seriously, have any U.S. personnel been detained by Iraqi police or ING after identification? No. U.K.? Yes. I'm curious as to why, without the implication that there's "fault" to be lain. The question that should be focused on is why, and how to rectify the situation.
As for the reasons for the falloffs, cite them. Don't cop out and suggest on the one hand that increased deaths = increased instability, but that decreased deaths do not necessarily equal increased stability. That's a relationship that's established by those citing the figures and to say that the opposite conclusion need not be accepted when the premise is refuted is to acknowledge that the original conclusion itself need not be accepted.
And, please, the BBC ain't all gold. Neither is Reuters or AP. Collective approach is best, but I'm curious who you define as one the "other" side of the fence.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Tweek128:
Yeah, that was at Howard. I saw his "I'm enlightened" schpiel earlier and found it funny that a Mank was going on about how worldy he was since he was A. British and B. had lived in three cities in the U.S. If he lived in Miami, I don't know how he could think that the U.S. was essentially racist.
Ah right, sorry. I assumed as your post was solely answering mine, so I assumed the footnote was also directed at me.
Quote:
I was gonna use the truth line earlier, but danced around it. You seem pretty sharp, so let's do better to avoid the ad hominem shall we? I mean both me and you, so don't think this is asking this only of you.
I was unsure about using it myself, but I was a little taken-aback by the assertion that I didn't want to hear anything good about Iraq. I do. I really do. I was anti-war, but I don't see the ideology of being anti-war and wanting Iraq to fall into chaos so we can say see, Bush, see Blair, war did
the place up.IMHO that’s just kids stuff.
Quote:
Also, to cite a sign of U.S. success, look at the bombing of the Palestine hotel. Iraqi security/army stopped the attack from achieving the higher death count that was intended. Only one U.S. soldier was involved. Could this have happened in Basra? Or would it be a police element conducting the attack?
Well, the Iraqi army is solely operating with the Americans. There's no option of them operating with the British, mainly because the Iraqi army is still largely non-existent (one operational Brigade I believe).
Quote:
And I don't want to turn this into a purely U.S. vs. U.K. thing, but, seriously, have any U.S. personnel been detained by Iraqi police or ING after identification? No. U.K.? Yes. I'm curious as to why, without the implication that there's "fault" to be lain. The question that should be focused on is why, and how to rectify the situation.
I believe it's too do with differing roles between the US and the UK. US forces are being employed in high visibility aggressive battles.
The only UK soldiers captured have been undercover SAS/Special Forces (Two incidents, the first was defiantly SAS, the second it's unclear, though I suspect they were probably SAS).
I find it unlikely that US forces are being employed in this sort of undercover role; they simply do not have the relevant training. Even the CIA cannot field agents in this capacity, as they tend to payoff locals.
The SAS, on the other hand, have much training in this regard, and it is, indeed, part of their reason for existence.
Simply put, I believe UK forces are in the situation where they can be arrested. US forces are not.
Quote:
As for the reasons for the falloffs, cite them. Don't cop out and suggest on the one hand that increased deaths = increased instability, but that decreased deaths do not necessarily equal increased stability. That's a relationship that's established by those citing the figures and to say that the opposite conclusion need not be accepted when the premise is refuted is to acknowledge that the original conclusion itself need not be accepted.
Ok.
We have less than two months of data indicating a falloff (august was in fact one of the bloodiest months of post war Iraq) so its far to early to say the situation is actually stabilizing. There’s no sustained trend.
As you say Iraqi forces are being fielded now, so that can also mean Iraqi forces are taking the brunt. Also I find figures of Iraqi casualties can be misleading, if for no other reason because there's no body bags coming home to count.
Also we're in October now. Ramadan started on the 5th. It's entirely possible that Muslim insurgents have temporally downed arms for just that reason.
On a purely conjectural basis the drop in insurgent activity could also be an indication of 'regrouping' for a major offensive.
My point is that it's way too early to start saying that Iraq is stabilising.
Quote:
And, please, the BBC ain't all gold. Neither is Reuters or AP. Collective aNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So I take it you're familiar with Chertoff's roundups?
The one operational brigade thing was a false assumption.
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/10/few-good-men.html
The "one operational brigade" was a misunderstanding regarding the fact that only one was rated at the highest level of capability set by the U.S. military.
Further:
Quote:
GEN. CASEY: You mentioned the Tall Afar model. I think that's a good example. Three Iraqi brigades and a third Iraqi infantry division went in Tall Afar with one of our brigades. Urban fighting. I mean, the toughest type of combat. And these Iraqi units were right there with our guys. And what happens is more and more we're seeing them -- and General Vines told me this morning -- in about half the cases now our guys are providing the outer cordon, and it's the Iraqis that are going inside; frankly, because they're much more effective in understanding what it is they're seeing there. But that's kind of the Tall Afar model. And none of those brigades that went in there were level one. They were level two and three. And so I'm trying to give you some sense of the capabilities of these guys.
If there was only one operational brigade, you wouldn't hear about as many Iraqi centered ops as you tend to hear about. It's another defeatist creative fact to run with.
As for why, then, the Brits don't run with as many Iraqi units, that's a question I'd like to see answered that I don't think we have an answer to right now.
Certainly, you may say it is or is not stabilizing, but if the death numbers fluctuate as they do, it is likely not the best measure of stability to cite, especially divorced of context.
As for BBC impartiality, I don't buy it. Does BBC have something of a high standard, sure. Impartial? Never. No one can be. They can try, but at times it's the belief that a source is impartial that allows its biases to have the most insidious effects. And, by belief, I mean both on the part of the consumer and the producer. Someone who cannot say "terrorist" regarding a suicide bomber is showing partiality (is that proper usage?) by not calling something what, under any circumstances, it could be or should be called.
To wit, is Timothy McVeigh referred to as an insurgent, when his goals were similar to those of the Iraqi "insurgents"? No, he is a terrorist. Why is sensitivity not shown to him as well?
You may not want the effort to fail, but can you honestly say that the reporters that you're reading feel the same and do not allow their biases to paint the situation accordingly? Language isn't the sole indicator of bias, after all. It can manifest itself in the selection of facts that one provides. And, in this case as with most, it can be almost impossible to check without multiple sources.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tweek128:
Good questions.
But It's late here, I'll address them tomorrow.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Shiny.
I think we've upped the level in discourse in this thread considerably.
Odd how Howard's nowhere to be found.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Tweek128:
The "one operational brigade" was a misunderstanding regarding the fact that only one was rated at the highest level of capability set by the U.S. military.
My understanding was that only one brigade was at full operational capabillity. My comment was a simplification of that.
Quote:
As for why, then, the Brits don't run with as many Iraqi units, that's a question I'd like to see answered that I don't think we have an answer to right now.
As you've already alluded to, the Iraqi military is the 'baby' of the US. As you say we don't know why the Iraqi military isn't operating with British forces, but I doubt it's because the British don't want to.
I think it should be noted that the Iraqi military is mainly being employed in 'American' operations (that is operations that would have been conducted by the American forces).
This is likely to be political (the Iraqi's are fighting the insurgency now, not us etc) as well as logistical. The American people just don't want their soldiers being the one's coming back in body bags (understandable).
Do I think the American Military is 'preventing' the Iraqi Military from operating with the British?
No, but I do think that the American military is keeping the Iraqi's on a short 'leash' for the time being.
Quote:
Certainly, you may say it is or is not stabilizing, but if the death numbers fluctuate as they do, it is likely not the best measure of stability to cite, especially divorced of context.
That was kinda my point...
Quote:
As for BBC impartiality, I don't buy it. Does BBC have something of a high standard, sure. Impartial? Never. No one can be.
Never said they were impartial. I essentially said they were about as good as you can get, and I still think they're better than the American equivalent.
Anecdotally I remember the news coverage of the attacks on the 7 of July in London. I was leaving Monument tube station at the time of the attacks, which is two stops down from Aldgate.
Throughout the day I obviously monitored the news, including American sources. The BBC delivered facts, first how it was believed to be an explosion from a power surge, then the likelihood of 'terror' attacks. They cited what and where, the emergency response, the number of casualties etc. There was no discernable speculation on the part of those expose the information. Looking at CNN (for instance) showed me terrible sensationalist crap, full of "Oh my god! This must be terrorists!" and alluding to the involvement of Islamic extremists.
Reuters is pretty good, though. Reporting the news, rather than opinion.
Quote:
Someone who cannot say "terrorist" regarding a suicide bomber is showing partiality (is that proper usage?) by not calling something what, under any circumstances, it could be or should be called.
To wit, is Timothy McVeigh referred to as an insurgent, when his goals were similar to those of the Iraqi "insurgents"? No, he is a terrorist. Why is sensitivity not shown to him as well?
The difference between Terrorists and Insurgents is in tactics. Terrorists attack civilian populations, use 'Terror tactics' (such as planting bombs, or suicide attacks) to spread fear, and distrust. Insurgents may use terror tactics, but they also engage military forces in open battles.
Timothy McVeigh was a Terrorist.
The Iraqi Insurgents are likewise insurgents. They use terrorists tactics as part of a wider 'guerrilla' action. They also limit their activities to the 'combat zone', which is another hallmark of Terrorist, who will attack their 'enemies anytime anywhere'.
Quote:
You may not want the effort to fail, but can you honestly say that the reporters that you're reading feel the same and do not allow their biases to paint the situation accordingly? Language isn't the sole indicator of bias, after all. It can manifest itself in the selection of facts that one provides. And, in this case as with most, it can be almost impossible to check without multiple sources.[/QUOTENOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
My understanding was that only one brigade was at full operational capabillity. My comment was a simplification of that.
Hence my remark regarding sources. I found contrary information, but I tend to read sites that actively find such information. This was one of the media "take it and run with it, facts be damned" kind of thing that reflects the willfullness
Quote:
This is likely to be political (the Iraqi's are fighting the insurgency now, not us etc) as well as logistical. The American people just don't want their soldiers being the one's coming back in body bags (understandable).
Do I think the American Military is 'preventing' the Iraqi Military from operating with the British?
No, but I do think that the American military is keeping the Iraqi's on a short 'leash' for the time being.
Still doesn't address why British forces aren't training groups on their own. Are they not in charge of the ING and Iraqi police in their sphere as we are? Or is it another example of the British "hands-off" policy? It just seems inexplicable why there is the level of distrust and lack of cooperation between the police and the British forces. Cite infiltration if you'd like, but the question then comes up as to how infiltration was left unchecked.
Quote:
That was kinda my point...
K. Agreed, then.
Quote:
Anecdotally I remember the news coverage of the attacks on the 7 of July in London. I was leaving Monument tube station at the time of the attacks, which is two stops down from Aldgate.
Throughout the day I obviously monitored the news, including American sources. The BBC delivered facts, first how it was believed to be an explosion from a power surge, then the likelihood of 'terror' attacks. They cited what and where, the emergency response, the number of casualties etc. There was no discernable speculation on the part of those expose the information. Looking at CNN (for instance) showed me terrible sensationalist crap, full of "Oh my god! This must be terrorists!" and alluding to the involvement of Islamic extremists.
Reuters is pretty good, though. Reporting the news, rather than opinion.
I think this is a result of the increased belief that "analysis" (more "speculation," really) is also definable as news. However, I find it really, really funny that all the spec you showed distaste for ended up being actually correct, and that the declaration (given in the same terms, mind you. They are careful about bs semantics) that you were more comfortable with was, in the end, false. How does that jibe?
Honestly, if you just prefer the home team, say so. Don't try to argue BBC's inherently better, as I've seen little whole truth to support this. Do they have good reporting? Sure. Are they head and shoulders, or even just head, above any other news agency on a given day? Not really. If it's your venue of preference, that's fine, but Foxnews is the venue of preference of others for the same reasons you cite BBC. Not saying that either your reasons are theirs are necessarily true, but the same reasons are cited.
Quote:
Insurgents / Terrorists definitions
This seems nitpicky, and not completely correct. While fear and distrust are terrorist goals, they are often towards a (perceived) greater political goal to which the group or individuals are working towards.
Also, McVeigh was striking and a Federal building, which, to his mind was not a civilian building. Does this, then, make him an insurgent?
To be honest, I think we're splitting hairs here. I would argue that a less logically problematic defintion would be that insurgents go out of their way to not target civilian deaths, (though some are unavoidable) whereas terrorists do not care whether the people killed are civilians, or military.
Yes, conveniently, by definition, the Iraqi "insurgents" who force foreign conscripts into car bombs and have recently made a
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Tweek128:
Still doesn't address why British forces aren't training groups on their own. Are they not in charge of the ING and Iraqi police in their sphere as we are?
The Military is a centralised thing. It's not open to being put together dependent on different areas. This is true of any Military, including the United States, the military is centralised. It can't work in any other way. There is cooperation between British and Iraqi forces, at least on an administrative level, but, as I said, the Iraqi military is the Americans baby, and it's centralised.
Quote:
It just seems inexplicable why there is the level of distrust and lack of cooperation between the police and the British forces. Cite infiltration if you'd like, but the question then comes up as to how infiltration was left unchecked.
Your argument is fine, assuming the same problems aren't hitting US areas.
This isn’t the case.
Quote:
They fled. It was all over the news. When the bullets flew, they fled. Leaving stations, abandoning posts, forgetting duties, hundreds of police fled. When the police response to gunfire was to simply run away, the city fell into lawlessness.
...
The local population, which had been friendly before, would no longer talk with the Americans, apparently fearful the enemy might either win or just outlast the Coalition.
http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/10/battle-for-mosul-iv.html
This is also a success story, read down the article, but goes to prove that these things are also still happening in American areas.
Quote:
Shiite and Kurdish militias, often operating as part of Iraqi government security forces, have carried out a wave of abductions, assassinations and other acts of intimidation, consolidating their control over territory across northern and southern Iraq and deepening the country’s divide along ethnic and sectarian lines, according to political leaders, families of the victims, human rights activists and Iraqi officials.
While Iraqi representatives wrangle over the drafting of a constitution in Baghdad, the militias, and the Shiite and Kurdish parties that control them, are creating their own institutions of authority, unaccountable to elected governments, the activists and officials said.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/21/allen-loyalty/
Indicates problems within American sponsored police/security.
More:
Iraq's thin (and blurred) blue line (Slightly older)
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2005/03/baghdad_journal12_polic
e.html
Quote:
"[[]Infiltration[]]affects the Iraqi police across Iraq as a whole"
Col Bill Dunham
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4266304.stm
Quote:
However, I find it really, really funny that all the spec you showed distaste for ended up being actually correct, and that the declaration (given in the same terms, mind you. They are careful about bs semantics) that you were more comfortable with was, in the end, false. How does that jibe?
Simple. The BBC’s comments were what they were being told by the authorities. They were reporting what the official line was. CNN was making it up. Whether they were right or not is completely incidental, they could have just as easily been wrong. Can’t you see how dangerous this kind of baseless (and at the time it was entirely baseless) speculation can be. It’s sensationalism for the purpose of gaining ratings, and has no place in real news reporting.
Quote:
Honestly, if you just prefer the home team, say so. Don't try to argue BBC's inherently better, as I've seen little whole truth to support this. Do they have good reporting? Sure. Are they head and shoulders, or even just head, above any other news agency on a given day? Not really. If it's your venue of preference, that's fine, but Foxnews is the venue of preference of others for the same reasons you cite BBC. Not saying that either your reasons are theirs are necessarily true, but the same reasons are cited.
Fox news? Come on. I could have cited fox new
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think we're reaching the "agree to disagree" point here.
Regarding Foxnews, if you look at their actual news reporting--not their opinion or "analysis" pieces--they stand up to cnn or msnbc. Have you actually read Foxnews' work, or do you simply accept what their competitors and detractors say regarding them and find no evidence to the contrary? Now this may seem like a foolish question, but the core of it is, do you know they are "tabloid" news because you know firsthand, or because that's the conventional wisdom of what you've read?
I've read a chunk of Yon's work, and it is on that that I base some of my understanding on the situation on the ground. I know about the translator guy, and Iknow that infiltration's a problem everywhere. The difference is that we have not had situations in other cities as you had in Basra, with the detention of British servicemen.
I'm seeing nothing from you acknowledging that that is new or different from problems the Americans are having, so I'm assuming you see nothing new and different there.
Regarding the BBC / CNN, would you, then, credit an American news agency that is simply " reporting what the official line" is? Is that not something to be critical of, when a media source simply accepts the offical line on something and does not provide competing theories?
And my preference is on accuracy. Sure, BBC was more reassuring, but in the end, they were wrong. CNN was speculative, but in the end, they were right. To me, that just reflects the better understanding of incoming information on the part of CNN. Not a flying-off-the-handle on their part.
Your defense of Beeb in this is somewhat amusing because it otherwise seems to contradict your standard of selective preference in instances.
Regarding the point on terrorists and insurgents, I disagree again. And I seriously wonder if you're pursuing this point in insistence that you are correct, or if you legitimately believe what you're saying.
Further, open warfare is different from terrorism. While open warfare may be unleashed upon buses, police stations, schools, and children, that does not change the fact that they are not conducting open warfare. They are conducting terrorist operations. Suicide bombers in cars, roadside ieds, and random attacks on soft targets is not open warfare.
If insurgents conduct themselves as terrorists, they are terrorists. How can you say otherwise? Would you disagree with my definition in the earlier post regarding targetting innocent civilians?
Regarding the articles on the Iraqi police, I find it interesing that the dateline is from, strangely enough, Basra. From the WaPo article:
Quote:
Since the formation of a government this spring, Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, has witnessed dozens of assassinations, which claimed members of the former ruling Baath Party, Sunni political leaders and officials of competing Shiite parties.
Also, the other article dealt with infiltrators allowing attacks ON the police. The WaPo article on Basra discusses attacks BY the police. Neither contradict my central points. Quite the contrary. Thanks for the material.
As for David Kelly, he was an example where what he said was taken out of context and against the meaning of how he had intended it. The reporter shaped what he heard to suit the story he wanted to write, and to me that is a black mark on their credibility.
But the bottom line is, you trust them more than I do, so would you agree it's pointless to discuss them much further?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME