By D. Cupples | Grasping official statements about the Iraq war is about as easy as following each strand in a colander full of cooked spaghetti. Violence in Iraq is down (or moved to different regions). Insurgents have been driven from Baghdad (and used telekinesis to set off four car bombs yesterday, one of which killed 16 people and wounded 32 in Baghdad).
Even within today's New York Times article, official statements about progress in Iraq seem to conflict. The Times reports that Sunni insurgents have been pushed out of Baghdad but have migrated to the northern city of Mosul in the Nineveh province. The sixth paragraph begins:
"American and Iraqi units have been able to hold off the insurgents and disrupt their planning." (NY Times)
The very next sentence:
"But they have not been able to decrease the rate of attacks in Mosul, which has held stubbornly steady over the past year even as attacks have fallen in Baghdad and Anbar Province, according to an analysis by American officers."
If attacks in Mosul have been steady for a year, in what way have forces held off insurgents? The ninth and tenth paragraphs of the article state:
"There are no plans to send additional American units to Nineveh Province [where Mosul is located]....
"He [Col. Stephen Twitty] added that his division’s leadership had been 'in dialogue' with Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the second-ranking American in Iraq, to see if reinforcements might be provided to 'address our problem areas.'” (NY Times)
Translation: we don't plan to send more troops, we're just talking about sending reinforcements. Adding to the confusion, the Associated Press reported yesterday:
"Army Col. Tony Thomas, a brigade commander, said senior commanders in the north are looking for additional U.S. troops and also would like the return of 1,400 Iraqi troops sent to Baghdad to provide 'more combat power' to help stabilize areas such as Diyala province, Mosul and Samara." (AP)
Which is it? Either they plan to send more troops to Mosul or not. If so, from where will those troops be diverted? And what will happen to the area from which troops are diverted? The Times further reported:
"Unlike Baghdad, Mosul was never scheduled to receive American reinforcements under Mr. Bush’s plan. The mission of the American troops here has been to prevent the city from falling again into the insurgents’ hands and to partner with Iraqi forces, while the main effort was focused on stabilizing Baghdad.
"The result is that Mosul is secured by about 6,500 Iraqi soldiers and policemen and a much smaller American contingent of about 1,000, Colonel Twitty said. The relatively small concentration of American forces in Nineveh has attracted insurgents."
It's a shame that President Bush's surge "strategy" didn't address the possibility that insurgents driven out of Baghdad would end up somewhere else -- like Mosul.
A frustrating theme seems to be emerging: drive insurgents out of one area, and they move to another. Apparently, Mosul isn't the only problem area: Col. Thomas also listed the Diyala province and Samara. (AP) Will we ever actually whack the elusive mole?
Lt. Col. Eric Welsh said: "'Mosul continues to be a center of gravity for the insurgency.... a financial hub." The Times explained:
"Insurgents from Baghdad, Diyala and Ramadi first appeared in the western part of Nineveh six months ago and later in Mosul, Colonel Twitty said.
"To finance their activities here, the insurgents have been diverting oil shipments from the Baiji refinery in northern Iraq, and skimming funds from a host of other enterprises, including a local cement plant and car dealerships, according to Lt. Col. Eric Welsh, the commander of the Second Battalion, Seventh Cavalry Regiment, which recently completed its tour of duty here." (NYT)
Translation: the insurgency is partly funded by financial crime and black-market activities. This reminds me of the 190,000 U.S. weapons that were lost in Iraq from 2004-05. How much money did insurgents pocket from selling U.S. weapons? Worse yet, how many of those U.S. weapons are being used against U.S. soldiers?
This is not the first time that Bush Administration statements about the war have been confusing. In June 2006, officials said they would reduce by half the troops in Iraq by December 2007 (this month). In June 2007, they said the cuts won't happen until late 2008 to 2009 (BN-Politics).
In March 2003, President Bush promised a short war; in May 2003, he proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" (USA Today).
In June 2007, officials said they envision a long-term occupation of Iraq, like Korea (which we've occupied for 50+ years). This month, President Bush is fighting for hundreds of billions in new funding for the Iraq war.
The Administration could improve its credibility by resisting the temptation to make strong, definitive statements with so little factual support that corrections ultimately require self-contradiction.
See Memeorandum for other bloggers' reactions.
Related BN-Politics' Posts
* Iraq: Conflicting Stories from the Front & at Home
* Car Bombs Kill 25, Gates in Iraq for News Conference
* Defense Secretary Says Military Can't Protect U.S. Interests Worldwide
* Under the Rug: Whatever happened to the 190,000 Missing Weapons?
* Pentagon Wants Refund of Wounded Vets' Signing Bonuses?
Comments