RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Do the Math

The Washington Post is out Monday with an article pushing the nonsense that most of the violence in Iraq, particularly suicide bombers, was cause by foreign fighters. Karen DeYoung writes:

Based on the Sinjar records, U.S. military officials in Iraq said they now think that nine out of 10 suicide bombers have been foreigners, compared with earlier estimates of 75 percent. Similarly, they assess that 90 percent of foreign fighters entering Iraq during the one-year period ending in August came via Syria, a greater proportion than previously believed.

Although there is no way of knowing how many of the total entrants the 606 recorded individuals represent, officials said Sinjar was a primary entrance point. Its importance increased as Iraq’s Anbar province — farther south and bordering Saudi Arabia and Jordan — became more difficult for foreigners to cross.

I do not dispute that there are foreign fighters and that they have carried out suicide bombing attacks. But check out these numbers:

Suicide attacks by the Sunni group against Shiite targets sparked the sectarian violence that swept Iraq in 2006 and the first half of last year. Al-Qaeda in Iraq carried out more than 4,500 attacks against civilians in 2007, killing 3,870 and wounding nearly 18,000, the military announced yesterday.

Do the math kids. 606 is what percentage of 4500 attacks in 2007. Let’s assume that every single foreign fighter identified in these records carried out a suicide attack. That accounts for a little more than 10% of the attacks. Who were behind the other 90%? The American people are not being told that the vast majority of the attacks in 2007 were carried out by Iraqis, not foreign fighters and not Al Qaeda.

When Zarqawi was killed in June of 2006 I had just left Iraq. I was working with the U.S. military forces who tracked him down and killed him. Before U.S. forces could land at the house where Zarqawi had been hit by a U.S. bombing strike, Iraqi Sunni police were on scene trying to rescue him and get him medical treatment. The message? Zarqawi had significant support among Iraqi government officials with Sunni ties.

One of the main reasons we have seen a drop in the number of attacks in Sunni controlled areas is not that foreign fighters have stopped coming in. No. We have changed our tactics in those areas and enlisted the very insurgents we were battling into self-defense units.

Foreign fighters are a convenient boogeyman. But they are not the cause nor source of the violence in Iraq. Violence that continues to take the lives of Iraqi civilians at levels we would not tolerate in our own society if the casualties were American men, women, and children. Do the math.

Update: Also check out this piece in the NY Times, which provides a better picture of the dynamics driving the insurgency. I was not a source for Oppel’s piece but it hits the key points:

Some critics contend that estimates of insurgents who actually belong to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, which American officials say is overwhelmingly Iraqi but has foreign leadership, tend to be overstated. Many insurgents who are lumped into the group, they say, are Sunnis who simply need money or who are angered by the sectarian bias of Iraqi security forces, but who have no wider allegiance to Al Qaeda.

When the United States started paying Sunnis to join local militias is it any surprise that the level of violence dropped off? People needed money to survive and provide for their families.

  • shirin

    What neither the Washington Post, nor you, seems to be mentioning is the fact that the overwhelming majority of attacks overall are not against Iraqi civilians anyway, but against occupation forces, and are conducted by Iraqis.

    What part of JUST GET THE HELL OUT is not getting through to people?

  • shirin

    PS Zarqawi was significant largely as a construct of the American PR regime. His significance to Americans as a supposed “Al Qa`eda operative” was far greater than his significance to any Iraqi ever was. Of course, his actual relationship to Al Qa`eda was – well – let’s be nice and say virtually nonexistent.

    Oh yeah – and did he actually have one leg or two? And did he really manage to travel, completely undetected, on that one (or two?) leg(s), with near-mortal abdominal wounds (inflicted by the heroic Americans, of course) from western Iraq all the way across the width of the country and into Iran where he was lovingly nursed back to health by the very Shi`as whom he repeatedly vowed in very ugly language to violently remove from existence? And did he really form alliances simultaneously with the Ba`thist `Izzat Ad Duri, the arch-Shi`a, and virulently anti-Ba`thist Muqtada As Sadr, and the Iranian Ayat’ullahs as the American military propagandists claimed?

    Puleeeeeeeeeze! What an astonishing importance the Americans have managed to place on a semi-analphabet third-rate, thug from an obscure village in Jordan who was rejected by Osama bin Laden!

    • CK

      Why he was almost as useful as Colin Powell.
      I am minded of an old saying
      Who, whom. V.I. Lenin

      • shirin

        One of my most memorable “Zarqawi moments” was when I heard a (quite liberal) talk show host on the biggest, most award-winning talk station in the country, refer to Zarqawi in a hysterical tone of voice as “one of the most powerful terrorists in the world”. I didn’t know whether to fall on the floor laughing, or dial the station and set the guy straight – or maybe dial the station and set him straight while rolling on the floor laughing.

        • CK

          Things I miss:
          Daily changes in the colour coded alerts system.
          Monthly capture/killing of the #3 man in Al Quaeda.
          Weekly reports of # of schools painted and # of hours of electricity available.
          The USA is an easily cowed nation. Very fearful of anything and everything. Probably a Jungian reaction to finding out that there are no monsters under the bed, no Santa Claus, and that the Easter bunny is pink for a reason.

          • http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

            Hey, you mean the Energizer Bunny! :)

            Speaking of pink, did you know during the 1980s, when PCB use was at its height, behavioralists used to stick PCB patients in bubble gum pink rooms to calm them down? Only the patients could only stay in those rooms for about 15 minutes before you’d have to scrape them off the floor. They’d become suicidal if left in too long. It didn’t matter if you were blind either. Because light waves can affect your nervous system even if you can’t see them.

            Something to think about if you’re fundraising or campaigning, say…wear pink, or if you’re painting a room pink.

          • TeakWoodKite

            no Santa Claus? Say it isn’t so! :(

  • Taters

    Excellent Larry.

  • JestWondering

    Doesn’t the foreign fighter meme play into the propaganda theme of, “The Iraqi’s are not that upset with our brutal and stupid occupation of their country rather it’s the bad guys who don’t live there, that are the real problem.” IOW, we really are seen as the good guys, ergo, we are the good guys … and all of you who think we our plan of stupifyling brutality are just wrong, so there!

    And another thing, while I’m ranting, the surge (surge = real COIN ops) … finally, after 4 1/2 years, we have stopped shooting at everyone who frowns at us and have actually figured out that attempting to co-opt some of the frowning crowd is better than having everyone in the mob trying to kill us … all at the same time.

    • shirin

      I believe during the era when students actually agitated for change, the operative term was “outside agitators”. From what I understand, the idea was that outsiders were coming in and instigating all those appearances (mere appearances) of discontent. Then students themselves would, of course, have remained blissfully happy and utterly content with the situation without all those “outside agitators”.

  • Diane

    Maybe Iraq needs the wall instead of Texas or New Mexico?

  • shirin

    Many insurgents who are lumped into the group, they say, are Sunnis who simply need money or who are angered by the sectarian bias of Iraqi security forces, but who have no wider allegiance to Al Qaeda.

    How interesting – and very telling – that the NYT apparently does not mention the biggest reason that Iraqis – of all kinds, not just Sunni – join and support the resistance (propagandistically misnamed “insurgency”). How interesting – and very telling – that there is not a single word (at least not in the portion Larry chose to quote) about the occupation, without which none of this would be happening.

    IT’S THE OCCUPATION, STUPID!

  • http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

    Hasn’t ethnic cleansing eliminated a lot of people to kill?

    Plus, isn’t another reason that the “insurgency” violence has dropped off is that we’ve increased aerial bombings? But when talking about the decreased level of violence, that somehow never gets factored in. Guess it’s OK when we do the killing, and we don’t count dead Iraqis.

    The other ridiculousness is “the surge is working” bullshit, which is related to the violence is decreasing meme. Glenn Greenwald wrote an excellent essay about that yesterday and cited a WaPo oped by Andrew Bacevich, which basically says: yeah the surge has worked only in one respect–to keep us in Iraq forever, which is the goal of the pro-war enthusiasts. Even if that goal is completely unsustainable, not to mention a war crime of grotesque proportions.

    • shirin

      Yes, Leslie, if my recollection is correct, the number of bombings by Americans increased by a factor of about five in 2007. But Iraqi victims of American bombings don’t count somehow.

      And yes, the goal of the “war enthusiasts” is and always has been to keep the U.S. in Iraq forever, and that crosses political party lines. Just for starters, any American politician who claims that monstrosity in the Green Zone is actually an embassy, and who does not intend to dismantle it, has no intention of releasing the U.S. stranglehold on Iraq’s politics, economy, society – and, of course, oil.

      • http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

        If by “crossing party lines” you’re referring to the Dem presidential candidates, I don’t quite agree with you. I believe all three top Dems have repeatedly advocated withdrawal of combat forces, and Edwards recently advocated total withdrawal.

        Bush’s policies, however, will make it very tough to withdraw without costing the Dems, who’ll be labelled surrender monkeys or some such. It will also make total withdrawal next to impossible—speaking from a strictly American political perspective. I’m not saying that’s right, by the way.

        • CK

          It is probably given their promises to AIPAC, that BHO and HRC mean withdrawal to the East, not withdrawal to the USA.

        • shirin

          Leslie, listen carefully and fully to what Clinton and Obama are saying. They talk about withdrawing combat troops, then they describe the purposes for which they will need to keep troops in Iraq for an indefinite period, and those purposes include, guess what? Combat. They don’t call it combat, of course, but come on!

          Obama says “no permanent bases”, then he says troops will be needed in Iraq to “guard American bases” – huh?! No bases, troops needed to guard the bases? Ooooookaaaaaaay.

          Hillary and Obama have both proposed plans to withdraw 1-2 brigades per month (Hillary’s withdrawal would begin 60 days after she takes office, I don’t recall when Obama said his would begin), and continue throughout 2009. Do the math, and you will find that in both cases there would be around 50,000 or so troops remaining.

          Both have said that they would be keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely to 1) guard the “embassy” (OK, but guarding a real, actual embassy only needs some tens of troops, or at most a few hundred, not tens of thousands, 2) protect Americans working in Iraq (OK, and WHAT Americans working in Iraq, and doing WHAT – trying to make sure the U.S. dominates the country politically and economically, perhaps? Using Iraq as a base for U.S. regional operations, perhaps?), 3) Protect American “assets” (and what might THOSE be, one wonders?), – and this is critical 4) pursuing American “strategic interests”. Now what do you suppose THAT is code for?

          In addition, Hillary has specifically stated that she would continue the United States’ “military as well as political mission” in Iraq. That means high numbers of U.S. personnel – including tens of thousands of troops – would need to remain in Iraq. Hillary says these troops would be needed indefinitely in order to counter Iranian influence (which is spectacularly hypocritical, and could also easily involve combat), protect the Kurds (anyone think THAT is not a combat role?), prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state (read “make sure a compliant, puppet government remains in place – also, COULD involve combat), and supporting the Iraqi military (what is that if not a combat role?). Oh yes – and don’t forget her “continuing mission against al-Qaeda in Iraq”. Anyone who believes that would not involve combat, please put on the dumbass hat immediately and go stand facing the wall until President Hillary or President Obama withdraw from Iraq.

          Oh yes – and given that both Clinton and Obama clearly intend to keep tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq indefinitely, where are they going to keep them if not in those permanent bases?

          As for Edwards, he has been somewhat better than the other two, saying he anticipates keeping “about a brigade” or “3500-5000 troops” in Iraq just to to guard the “embassy” and “protect American humanitarian workers”. That’s too many troops, and the fact that he apparently intends to maintain the Regional Command and Control Center is troubling, but at least he does not intend a set of extended missions involving tens of thousands of troops.

          Leslie, looking at history it is clear that Democrats are no less bent on world dominance – empire, to put it succinctly – than Republicans are. Though they do go about it in a more covert manner than George Bush has (but then, when has the United States EVER had such a brazen, in-your-face imperialistic regime?), diplomacy has not been their primary approach any more than it has been the primary approach of the Republicans. And that includes the sainted, over-idealized, John F. Kennedy.

          The only candidate that I am confident would do the right thing in Iraq – pull out every troop, leave the permanent bases to the Iraqis, and dismantle the “embassy” and send everyone home – is Dennis Kucinich. And as we know, he doesn’t have a prayer, and never did.

          • http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

            Yeah…but….Dems and world dominance…1/2 cup versus full cup…a plague on all their houses…&$*(#*#@!! and &*($%#& &$*(#&*( but &*($)#()*! you know $#*()*?

            F**K ‘EM! Seriously. But I still have to vote for someone, so the guys who are even worse don’t get into office.

            • shirin

              Yeah, Leslie, I understand your dilemma. At least, though, you do not go into it as so many are, all starry-eyed believing that everything wrong in this country begins and ends with George W. Bush, and expecting the Democrats to be the knights in shining armour who are going to save the country from the demon neocons.

              The problems with this country are systemic and of long standing, and they cross party lines. They did not begin with George W. Bush and they will not end with George W. Bush.

        • Bill Keyes

          From Leslie..

          “Bush’s policies, however, will make it very tough to withdraw without costing the Dems…..”

          Tough?? Why should politics have anything to do with it?

          When the hell is someone going to stand up and say enough is enough.

          The reason we will never get out of Iraq is not because of the Bush regime, it’s because a majority of Democrats including the three Dem contenders still believe there is an Islamofascist under every bush.

          Hil-O-John are only saying they would withdraw in order to get the anti war vote, just like the Dems in Congress did to win in 2006. And the traitorous bastards then gave Bush a blank check.

          The real reason is that they never intended to oppose Bush and the same thing will happen again. Hil-o-John will say anything to get the antiwar vote and then as Shirin has pointed out many times to mostly deaf ears, they will all either support the McCain 100 year option or worse actually increase the troop presence.

          Well fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

          As the song by the WHO says..We won’t be fooled again.

          • shirin

            Bill, it is not about anyone’s belief in the threat of so-called “islamofascism” (which is an oxymoron, in any case). That would almost be reasonable. The supposed threat of supposed “Islamofascism” is nothing more than a pretext.

          • TeakWoodKite

            Regardless of what positions they take now, Dems will be painted with the fear card. As Karl Rove stated “neither Obama nor Clinton is prepared to protect the country from terrorists”. It is not about the next president saying we will keep the troops there forever. It will be the fact that we cannot sustain this occupation much longer without endangering the other national security issue events that are coming down the pipe. They will have no options other than to leave Iraq. Either way the next president will be hard pressed to get anything done if they can’t reverse or co-opt the “intentional chaos” policies of the Shrub years and get some responsible adults to supervise a reconstruction of what is an abject structural failure of American Democracy.

            Bill Keyes: For me it’s more like “such a subtle wrist”. The meanest pinball.

            • shirin

              we cannot sustain this occupation much longer without endangering the other national security issue events that are coming down the pipe.

              WHAT “national security issue events”? You mean the phony threat from Iran bandwagon that Hillary and Obama have so eagerly lept onto??

              “National security issue event” = pretext for yet more acts of imperial aggression.

              They will have no options other than to leave Iraq.

              Oh really? Then perhaps you have not heard Hillary’s and Obama’s announcements of their plans to significantly increase both the size and the budget of the military even though the current military budget exceeds the combined military budgets of every other country on the planet? Perhaps you did not hear that Obama plans to add 100,000 more personnel to the military (I don’t recall Hillary mentioning a specific number, although she might have)?

              Common sense, along with military analysts suggest that this is an extremely strong indication that both Hillary and Obama fully intend to stay in Iraq while also presiding over additional national security issue events.

              • TeakWoodKite

                Proud as you are of the actions of the Anbar Salvation Front playing both sides of the street, I made no reference to a given candidate. I am talking about this country having it’s priorities straight and resourcing them on a consistent and long term basis. I am not personally against increasing the rank and file of the military, but only if it means we get the fundamental needs and deficiencies addressed first that relate to our current force structure.
                WHAT “national security issue events”? you ask. Please don’t jump to the conclusion I am talking about Iran. I am not. Beside which, if Iran were a direct threat we would not currently be engaged in a proxy war with her. I am worried Bush will be pre-emptive this summer or fall for domestic political reasons.
                I am just a humble kite floating in shifting winds, I do not pretend to know or have clairvoyant insights concerning what events might occur; but they will. I do know having all our military assets sitting in the Iraqi sun year after year is not sustainable logistically, economically or politically. Wars of occupation are wars of attrition. Honestly, I cannot say when the time I saw eveidence of common sence being applied to US foriegn policy and because of this normal logic does not apply. There is no solving for ‘X’ using fuzzy math.
                “National security issue event” = pretext for yet more acts of imperial aggression??? Respectfully Shirin, you imply we don’t have real threats facing this country. Yes, many of them are of our own making and will come home to roost, but in no way does that mean National security issues are isolated to our own screwups.

  • CK

    You could ask the Chaldeans and the Yezidi how the cleansing has gone. Don’t hold your breath waiting for their shades to answer.
    Remember Iraq had a population of 26 million in 2002 even with all the deaths caused by 11 years of sanctions and bombings. Even if the USA has killed a million Iraqis over the last 6 years, the birth rate would have meant that the population would still be around 27 million. Funny things happen during war and occupation especially if there is no electricity…one of the oldest of hobbies occurs much more often in blackouts ( check data for the birth bulge in NYC 9 months after the NYC blackout ).

    • shirin

      Or ask the Madaeans – another ancient Iraqi religious group all but completely wiped out.

      And if anyone thinks these people were not just as Iraqi as any other Iraqi, and that they were not as much part of Iraqi society as any other Iraqi, then you don’t know Iraq and Iraqis.

  • G Hazeltine
  • http://authorterroristsofiraq.com Malcolm Nance

    How did they attribute 4,500 attacks to just AQI?? We averaged 34,000 attacks in 2006? That level of specificity, apart from SVBIEDs is really pretty amazing for AQI. I wrote in my book “The Terrorists of Iraq: Inside the Strategy and Tactics of the Iraq Insurgency” that AQI has always been about 3-5% of the insurgency … that was at peak strength in 2004-2005. I think what we have here is once again MNF-I calling anyone who conducts an attack Al Qaeda in Iraq. More likely is the Anbar Salvation Front are double dipping … conducting paid police operations for us during the day and paid IED attacks on us at night.

    • Taters

      Great point, Mr. Nance. Thank you for your service and courage on behalf of our country. You have many supporters here.
      Sincerely,
      Robert M. Murray

    • shirin

      More likely is the Anbar Salvation Front are double dipping … conducting paid police operations for us during the day and paid IED attacks on us at night

      That sounds about right, and if true, then I am proud of them.

      • TeakWoodKite

        then I am proud of them.?? Would you Please explain why Shirin?

        • shirin

          Because they are using one enemy – the occupying power – to help them fight another while not giving up the most important struggle, which is resisting the occupation.

  • Taters

    Shirin,
    There is a Mandaen society where meetings are held less than one block from my house.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeism

    • shirin

      Interesting! You know, the Mandaeans were very well known as goldsmiths, among other things. And they are Iraqi to the core.

  • CK

    Darn it all people, now you have me reading about old religious type people. Witch led to this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
    I have always had a weakness for redheads with snakes. And then I discover she is Adam’s FIRST wife??? Dude was a playa.

  • Pingback: This

  • Pingback: Jack