No one has any ideas?
Best,
Tom

Tom, I think many are waiting for your take on this development? The internal dynamics of Iraqi tribal politics from Kurdistan to Basra to Anbar seems Byzantine in complexity. The Grand Unification Theory in physics seems easier to decipher.

Tom,

The article said western Baghdad. Granted, I guess this could mean the far eastern border of Anbar province, but it's a far cry from something like this happening, say, in Ramadi. Given the sectarian/ethnic diversity in the general area, it could be anything: AQI trying to rile up sectarian strife, Shia gangs, political operatives, etc, etc.

Tom,

No commander wants to have the last casualties in a war. I think this is the reason for some of the overly optimistic assessments coming out of Iraq lately. We are hearing more about elections while violence is touted as "dramatically down" from its peak in 2006-2007 (the sectarian civil war). There are two major issues on the horizon; collaborator retribution and insurgents recreating permissive environments.

History tells us the fate of collaborators in a post-occupation environment. Sheikhs that were willing to work with the U.S. have already expressed their sense of abandonment and fear for the future.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/02/AR2009100205346.html

Policemen and Iraqi Army soldiers have been the primary targets for attack in Anbar this year. This is a classic insurgency tactic. Take a look at the attacks that have occurred in Anbar over the past six months.
http://www.icasualties.org/Iraq/IraqiDeaths.aspx

My biggest concern is that the employment of classic insurgency tactics and post-occupation collaborator targeting will be written off as the work of "dead enders" that did not participate in the elections. "Strategically defeated" groups do not destroy four government buildings. It's as if we are back to 2003-2004.

What is your view Tom?

You would need to be on the ground and (if foreign) have a contact with a major politician. This doesn't look like something an American can understand without a lot of research.

Tom,

I truly appreciate your posts on Iraq because so few are commenting on it, but you seem disconnected from events there.

1st, Abu Ghraib is where the bodies were found, which is in Baghdad province, not Anbar.

2nd, Iraqi violence is down to the lowest levels since the U.S. invasion in 2003, but you wouldn't know it from your posts. Trying to read Iraq from the headlines gives a distorted view because just about the only thing western papers are reporting on these days is violence. The trend since April 2009 has been for casualties to go up and down each month. Since October 09 was a high month for deaths, this month is low.

In Oct. for example, there were 22 mass casualty bombings leading to 241 deaths and 887 wounded, mostly from the Baghdad bombings on the ministries. This month there have only been 4 mass casualty bombings resulting in 19 dead and 37 wounded.

To see the trend read this:
http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2009/11/october-09-deaths-continue-up-and-down.html

3rd, the overall number of weekly attacks are also down in Iraq. Anbar, which Ricks has asked about several times for example saw a drop from 14.9 attacks per week from May-July 09 to 9.2 per week from Aug.-Oct. 09, making it the 6th most violent province in Iraq. During those months attacks in Iraq went down in 11 of Iraq's 18 provinces. You wouldn't know that from reading press reports.

To see the stats see:
http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2009/10/mid-2009-weekly-security-statistics-for_30.html

4th, the trend in violence in Anbar was for it to dip in the beginning of 2009, but then it has slowly gone back up, but it's still below 2008 levels.

For example, in the 4th quarter of 2008 there were 25.33 deaths and 77.6 wounded. In the 3rd quarter of 2009 there were 24.33 deaths, and 84.0 wounded. Most of the violence there is because of two reasons: 1) There are still a few Al Qaeda elements who are trying to get revenge against the Awakening for turning on them and to sow some chaos overall, 2) The tribes in Anbar have all split into competing factions and don't like each other and are taking out their disputes on one another using violence.

For a review of violence in Anbar see:
http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2009/10/low-level-violence-persists-in-anbar.html

5th, the reason why those 13 got killed is likely due to one of those two factors. Either Al Qaeda because most of the people killed were in an Sons of Iraq unit, or a tribal dispute.

6th, Ricks you're missing the biggest event in Iraq right now which is the 2010 election law. It finally got passed, but now the Presidential Council is threatening a veto. That is the number one issue in Iraq right now, but you never seem to comment on any of the political events in Iraq, which is more important than the violence currently.

Tom-

I have little doubt that these killings are the result inter-tribal squabbles between elements of the Zobai (Zubaie) tribe and its traditional rivals in the region. It may also be due to infighting b/w current/former elements of the 1920 Revolution Bde (predominately Zobai). This tribe is traditional at odds with its own sub-tribes and its neighbors so this is not a rare event. Just my 2 pence.

FYI...as-Sadaan is part of the "Zaidon" region SW of Baghdad. The locals are considered to be part of al-Anbar; however, they do take advantage of being so close to Baghdad and send representatives to the Abu Gharaib district vice the Fallujah district. (Fallujah Dis would ignore them anyway due to tribal conflicts with the Fallujah dominate tribes).

Tom, there is a broader story here that you should be interested in. The 13 people killed were part of the Sahwa, who we paid off to stop killing American soldiers during the Anbar Awakening. We stopped paying them in 2008 and Maliki was supposed to start paying them in 2009. He hasn't. This is a huge problem and definitely speaks to Sunni vulnerability ahead of elections. You should read the rumor coming out of it at http://www.putiraqfirst.com

JWing,

I am curious how you are more connected to events in Iraq than Tom or others. You provided six valid points but most sound similar to the forced positive spin of public affairs officers.

1st point - Thank you for the geographic clarification.

2nd point - Violence is probably the worst metric for "success" you can use. Violence is an indicator of conflict, not popular governance. There are two places where you will not see violence, areas in full government control and areas in full control by another party (insurgents, criminals, etc.). Noting that violence is down to its lowest levels since the 2003 invasion is very misleading. There have been 0 U.S. deaths in Tehran since 2003. I would not state such an irrelevant fact to support political achievements within the country. War is politics by other means. Keep that in mind.

3rd point - Your third point is again on the issue of violence metrics. We have had U.S. troops mostly fall back from the cities since the end of June. How has this changed insurgent targeting? It is pointless to plant an IED for a patrol that is no longer there. Also, how strong is your confidence in Iraqis to report EVERY incident in the same manner as coalition forces? If you believe these major factors are not responsible for a drop in violence I would be very curious as to why.

4th point - Yet again on violence data. "The 3rd quarter of 2009 there were 24.33 deaths..." How does one-third of a person die? These are human lives not stock market trends.

5th point - Without evidence or a legitimate confession, we are all speculating as to why 13 Sons of Iraq members were assassinated. I am sure MNF-I believes AQI were responsible, the Iraqi government believes Baathists or does not care, and Sunnis believe Iranian proxy assassins were responsible. That is the true political environment of Iraq today.

6th point - JWing, you my friend are missing the biggest event in Iraq right now which is the destabilizing capability of the 2010 election law.

FM 3-24 and JP 3-24 loosely defines insurgency as the "organized use of subversion AND violence. Where are the metrics on subversion? The U.S. co-opted a good chunk of the insurgency to combat al Qaeda in Iraq. After the initial successes of pushing back al Qaeda, the U.S. moved these "former" insurgents into politics. This is counter-intuitive to the COIN basics laid down by David Galula.

Participation in an election is not acceptance of a government, but rather another tool to achieve your ultimate objectives. Are any taxes collected anywhere in Iraq? What is the average wholesale and retail prices of propane, diesel, kerosene? Who controls those prices? What bases allow U.S. military personnel to go out in town in civilian attire off hours? Why do we only see photos of U.S. politicians and generals in the city NOT wearing full battle rattle?

Since 2003, the U.S. has be plagued with terrible metrics. I would recommend reading Bernard Fall's paper on COIN theory and practice as he went through similar struggles with metrics during Vietnam. You can find it at the SmallWarsJournal site here:
http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/documents/fall.pdf

Best of luck out there and stay safe.

The reason why I focused upon security statistics is because that's all Tom Ricks posts about.

2nd if you don't think there's a difference between 2,000-3,000 people dying a month, 1,000 attacks a week, and the current levels of violence, I wonder how you are more connected.

3rd if you want to talk about the economics of Iraq I can do that as well. There are very few taxes or tariffs in Iraq, most of those were gotten rid of by the CPA to try to kick start the economy through free market reforms. I don't know the price of fuels right now, but they're subsidized by the government so they are kept artificially low, and overall inflation in Iraq is at -2.7%.

4th the Sunnis really do want representation in the government, and that includes several Sunni insurgent groups. They regret boycotting the 2005 elections, and want to get places in government in this election before the U.S. withdraws because they're paranoid about what the Shiites might do with no American presence. The problem is they are completely divided, which means they will probably end up tokens in whatever government is formed between the Shiite and Kurdish parties.

JWing,

This will be my last reply. My intent is not to offend but to add a different dimension to the discussion. We are all hoping for the best, but it seems not everyone is preparing for the worst.

1st - I would recommend reading all of Tom's Iraq postings because violence is not the only Iraq topic he posts about. There are 32 postings in the unraveling series.
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/category/one_time_tags/iraq_the_unraveling

2nd - Yes I can do basic math and understand that 3000 is more than 1000. My point was a fundamental of counterinsurgency. Violence is indicative of conflict; we can both agree on that. Are you stating that a lack of violence in an area equates to government control?

3rd - You must be in or were in the International Zone since that is the only time I hear such a response. If you want to find areas where the government is not in control find the areas of price gouging and protection rackets. There you will find everyone from criminal opportunists to Al Qaeda in Iraq. Again, a lack of violence does not mean the government controls the territory. These areas are protected, just not by the government.

4th - I appreciate the cookie cutter PAO/State Department answer but let us restate it in a different manner. Sunni Arabs do not want to be the victims of genocide and watch their country become a proxy government of Iran.

Bottom Line: We have no idea how the elections are going to turn out, who will accept the results, how long it will take for a government to form, and how that new government will function.

If you are still out there, I know the CARE packages are flooding mail rooms for Thanksgiving, but it is still not the same as being home. Take care, be safe and pass around that Bernard Fall paper if you can.

2009 has seen the lowest violence since the U.S. invasion. I would argue that the major reason for that is because many Sunnis decided to try the political process in the 2009 provincial elections. For example, do you know about al-Hadbaa in Ninewa? They not only worked out a cease-fire with the insurgents there, but got many of them, along with former military officers and Baathists to join their coalition that consists of Mosul businessmen and tribal leaders. Ninewa and Mosul are still the 2nd most violent areas in Iraq because of the Arab-Kurd dispute, but it still saw a sustained drop in violence starting in late 2008. And at the other end of the spectrum, the victory of al-Hadbaa didn't solve anything politically because now they're deadlocked with the Kurdish Alliance there.

I think overall the 2009 provincials are going to be the model for the 2010 vote. Yes, forming a new government is going to take months because Iraqi politics has fractured even more in the last year or so, but there will be more Sunni participation just as there was in 2009 compared to 2005. Their major problem however is that they do not have 1 or 2 major parties but several, which means they will be role players in the real negotiations between the 2 Kurdish parties and the major Shiite ones.

Finally, the Iraqi government is still dysfunctional. They're running their second deficit, although production of some key services are above what they were before, they aren't close to meeting demand, and their bureaucracy is as slow as a snail and as corrupt as you can find. That being said, there are no real challengers to the Iraqi state anymore. That is a major change, but what it means is that there are a whole set of new problems, which are more political and economic than about security, which is my main problem because I think Ricks and others focus almost exclusively on the violence, while they're missing everything else going on in the country.

Womens Roll-Top Timberland Boots
$143.00 $83.00
Save: 42% off
Timberland Roll-Top Boots womenPremium, full-grain, waterproof leather for comfort, durability and abrasion resistance ; Direct-attach, seam-sealed, waterproof construction keep feet dry in any weather ; Quarter panel crafted with rich shearling leather and is unconstructed so it can be worn up or rolled down ; Durable laces with Taslan? fibers and rustproof hardware for long-lasting wear ; Inside of shoe is lined with shearling - up to the toe box which is lined with breathable fabric ; Rubber lug outsole for traction and durability ; Embossed Timberland tree logo on the side ; Steel shank provides maximum support ; Waterproof

http://www.brawbuy.com/
http://www.myjerseysky.com/
http://www.ghdprincess.com/