Lately, the situation in Iraq is disturbing me. Since the election at the end of January, casualties and attacks on our forces have been down. This and other indicators seem to show that the insurgency is dying. It is thought to be dying despite its failure to mount a Tet-style offensive either prior to our elections or the Iraqi elections. Yes, there was a surge in attack on election day, but it was so ineffective that it is difficult to call it an offensive. Was that really it? Was that the best they could do? One would have thought they'd have scraped up what they could to try and reverse the momentum. I expected some local successes somewhere. Is this really victory?
But in the last week, including the enemy attack on Abu Ghraib, it seems like we've (we or the Iraqis) have run into platoon-sized enemy forces (30-60) a number of times. Plus, I've noticed an uptick in casualties the last week.
I think we are winning. But one measure of winning that I've looked for is the size of enemy attacks. We want to atomize the enemy so that police forces can handle them. We want them atomized so that small outposts aren't vulnerable to being overrun by enemy forces. But we haven't atomized the enemy if they can mass 50 fighters to attack us or if we run into such a number during operations. Some writers may celebrate that we can kill lots when they mass but killing lots isn't the solution. Breaking the enemy recruitment and support by some of the public is key. Sure, kill them when they mass--an opportunity is an opportunity--but it isn't ideal if the enemy can roam around with 50 guys. We want them broken down.
My question is, are these contacts with larger enemy forces indicating that the enemy is preparing for a last-ditch offensive to shock us? Are these contacts revealing something? Was the Abu Ghraib attack perhaps an early attack that is just ahead of the general attack to come?
I always keep in mind that in February 2004, our casualties were very low and I started to hope that we'd broken the enemy after Saddam's capture. The April uprising followed.
One good thing we have going for us if the enemy thinks they can Tet us, is that unlike in the Vietnam War, our press hasn't been proclaiming success for the last two years. Tet, though a military victory for us, shocked the home front by showing the enemy capable of a large attack when we had been led to believe it was impossible. This time, the press has been portraying the Iraq War as Vietnam Part II. So if the enemy attacks broadly in the Sunni areas in a surge offensive to try and bolster insurgent morale, break ours, and inspire new insurgent recruits, we are in a better position to ride out the attack.
yes, we are winning. But we need to be on guard and not pop the corks quite yet.
I smell a grenade.
UPDATE: I forgot that this is the two-year anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. Some of the nasties in Iraq want to remember this event:
Now radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is urging his supporters to mass at the square Saturday and mark the anniversary by directing anger at the U.S.-led coalition.
"The occupation forces started with this place, and now from this same place we want them to leave Iraq," said Sheik Abdul-Hadi al-Daraji, a spokesman for al-Sadr, who led uprisings against coalition forces last year.
"They have toppled Saddam and now we want them out. The situation in Iraq is going from bad to worse. The Iraqis saw no good during these two years of occupation."
Sheik Hareth al-Dhari, the leader of the Association of Muslim Scholars, an influential group of hard-line Sunni Muslim clerics suspected of having ties to the Iraqi insurgency, also urged people to take to the streets Saturday.
"We call on all Iraqis to demonstrate tomorrow in all of Iraq's cities against the occupation," al-Dhari told worshippers during his Friday sermon.
Al-Daraji said al-Sadr's supporters will demand that foreign troops leave or at least set a timetable for withdrawal. They will also call for putting Saddam on trial and freeing prisoners held in "occupation prisons," he said.
Ok, now I'm really on edge. I don't trust Muqtada al-Sadr and I don't trust the association. And didn't the Syrians (patrons of the Sunni Baathists) and Iranians (who once bankrolled Sadr) declare an alliance recently? Might they not have decided to have one more try at breaking the new and free Iraq?
This might be a good time for them to mount an al-Tet offensive. Lots of people will be on the streets if the protest pans out. And our side will be restrained on the assumption that these are protesters and not the enemy, giving the enemy time to get in position.
As I said, we'd beat it back but I don't assume we are out of the woods yet. I'll breathe easier if this weekend passes without any major disruption. I know I'm connecting some widely spread dots, but still--what is the enemy up to? I'd cancel leave at double up the guards.
Or this could just be a protest rally that fizzles, showing up the enemy to be pretty weak.
And one more thing. Why is Sadr still alive? He revolted twice now and I don't assume he won't again. He has plenty of blood on his hands. Nail him.
