US Mulls Permanent Iraq Presence? MRAPs vs. EFPs
By Greg Hoadley
IraqSlogger.com, 31 May 2007.
The most provocative read in today's paper has to be the Journal's look at some of the behind-the-scenes thinking of US officials about "post-surge" Iraq policy, with some arguing for a permanent US presence and deeper US management of Iraqi government institutions.
See also the discussions in the Monitor and USAT over the evolving role of mine-resistant vehicles in the theater, and the bureaucratic struggle in Washington over their deployment.
As the US continued its hunt for five captured Britons in Iraq, speculations flew over the organizations that might be behind the brazen raid on the finance ministry on Tuesday where the men were taken. The Sadrist current denied involvement in the abductions, John Ward Anderson and Naseer Nouri write in the Post, while the US conducted overnight raids in the Mahdi Army stronghold of Sadr City. Three houses were targeted in raids, which a Sadrist official said caused “a lot of damage” at one site. Though the US would not confirm that it was raiding the Sadr City houses to search for the captives, the Sadrist official said that troops yelled “Where’s the British?” as they searched. A child was killed by a flare whose parachute failed to open at another, he added. The US, UK and Iraqi government have not revealed exactly where they are looking for the captives. Bayan Jabr, the infamous former Interior Minister, is now the minister of finance, at the offices of which the attack occurred. 25 bodies were recovered in Baghdad, shot to death and many bearing evidence of torture. Three Iraqi journalists were reported killed on Wednesday, bringing the total number of journalists killed in Iraq to 103, along with 39 media support workers, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.
In the Times, David Cloud leads his daily Iraq roundup with the Sadr City raids. . One other “non-Iraqi” employee was apparently in the building at the time of the kidnapping raid, was not taken, as he may have been in a separate room. Separately, two Iraqi employees of the US embassy were believed to have been kidnapped. The Islamic State of Iraq issued a statement claiming responsibility for downing a helicopter Tuesday in Diyala Province, and for killing the two pilots inside. The US has acknowledged the crash and the deaths, but has not announced the cause. Five people were killed by mortars in Falluja, and three Iraqi soldiers died in Hilla in an attack on their checkpoint. Ten people were killed in fighting touched of by an attempt to arrest suspected Sunni Arab militants in Khalis, Diyala province. Four policemen and one Iraqi soldier were among the dead.
The Journal advances the story on the administration’s “post-surge” deliberations. Greg Jaffe and Yochi Dreazen write that, in the near term, debate centers on how to increase the effectiveness of US war efforts during the “surge’s” guaranteed period, through September, when Gen. Petraeus is due to give a progress report, but already the indicators of “success” are mixed at best: Militia activity seems to be climbing, including Mahdi Army activity, and sectarian murders are increasing in the capital. May was the deadliest month since 2004’s assault on Falluja, even while the US has found new allies in the tribal leaders around the country who have taken American support to fight al-Qa'ida-linked groups. On the Iraqi political front, some US officials lean towards forcing the Iraqi actors to make a deal: "We've been too passive and deferential to Iraqi sovereignty," said one U.S. military official involved in a review of the surge for Gen. Petraeus, the Journal writers report. A strategy review conducted for Gen. Petraeus will recommend treating Iraq as a “failed state,” recommending that the US “devote far more effort to making Iraq's ministries work,” the Journal reporters write, citing officials who participated in the review. But, the real debate looks to the long term, and, from the report, US officials are not weighing full withdrawal, per se, but rather a redeployment strategy that would take the public pressure off. “White House spokesman Tony Snow yesterday said Mr. Bush envisions an indefinite American military presence in Iraq that would resemble the one in South Korea, with the U.S. in a support role able to ‘react quickly to major challenges or crises’,” they write. The debate over post-September policy in Iraq is not a very public one, and any insight about the balance of forces inside the administration is worth a full read.
MRAPs
The Monitor checks in with the progress of the Pentagon’s order for MRAPs (Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicles), wondering why the IED-resistant vehicles, with their hallmark V-shaped hulls, are not in wider deployment in Iraq. Only 350 of the machines are deployed in Iraq, Gordon Lubold writes, raising eyebrows in Washington and throughout the military. If you haven’t followed this issue through the USAT’s close reporting, take a look at Lubold’s piece for a summary of why the armored vehicles – available since 2003 -- have not been widely deployed in Iraq. The answers, Lubold writes, like in the tortured Pentagon contracting process, a misperception about the longevity of Iraqi resistance groups, and the capacity of the private sector to ramp up production, even though the Marines have been pushing for MRAPs since early 2005.
Tom Vanden Brook of USAT adds another dimension to the MRAP question: MRAPs may be effective against roadside bombs, but EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) can shred the vehicles – and their occupants. A Marine Corps document obtained by the paper argues that MRAPs need to be “up-armored” in order to protect against EFPs, which are expected to be used more heavily against US forces as the Humvee is phased out in favor of the new MRAP. “The Army has tested armor that appears to protect MRAPs from the explosives, said Brig. Gen. Michael Brogan” of Marine Corps Systems Command, the lead agency for the MRAP program. As mentioned earlier, USAT has followed the MRAP debate most closely its reporting. The Army appears to be developing armor that may fracture the EFP’s shaped charge, but it is dubious that an expensive new armor program will stop all EFP attacks.
In other coverage:
WASHINGTON POST
The next issue of Foreign Affairs magazine will feature policy pieces by former governor Mitt Romney and Sen. Barack Obama, both running for the 2008 nomination in their respective parties. “Obama calls the Bush administration's Iraq policies ‘tragically misguided’ and advocates a phased withdrawal of US combat forces, to be completed by next March. Romney notes that there is ‘no guarantee’ that the administration's current strategy will succeed but says that ‘the stakes are too high and the potential fallout too great to deny our military leaders and troops on the ground the resources and the time needed to give it an opportunity’,” Karen DeYoung writes.
In his column, David Broder argues that the “endgame” is looming for the war. Although high casualty rates are expected to continue through the summer, “The dynamic in Congress has been set in motion that will bring this war to an end -- or at least reduce the scale of American involvement and redefine the mission of U.S. troops,” he writes, citing three factors: The September Petraeus report, the 2008 military spending debates, and the 2008 election cycle will be the triggers, he writes. The Dems will run an antiwar campaign, and the Bush administration may look to the Iraq Study Group for salvation. The most ominous shift for the White House: The growing centrist GOP demand for a change in course, including the powerful Sen. Warner. The question is, do these developments point to an “endgame” or to a “redeployment”?
David Ignatius argues in his column that it is time to dust off the Iraq Study Group report, which the Bush administration seems to be gravitating toward in its way. Ignatius argues that the Baker-Hamilton plan may solve key problems in Washington related to making Iraq policy, namely the isolation of the Bush administration: “While the Democratic leadership isn't likely to join Bush in a top-down push for consensus, White House officials hope that by embracing Baker-Hamilton, they can begin to build out from a new center. The goal is a policy that has broad enough support that it could last into the next administration.” Ignatius argues that the recent engagement with Iran is also a positive step. So the plan solves problems in Washington and Tehran, but Ignatius hardly addresses the real question, debate over which was aborted by the “surge”: Will the Iraq Study Group recommendations meet with any success in Iraq?
Check this out: From Anbar province, Matt Pottinger, former Wall Street Journal reporter, sends in an open letter to the Dow Jones Co. arguing against the proposed sale of the Journal to Rupert Murdoch.
USA TODAY
The return of Muqtada al-Sadr to the Iraqi scene “ought to be a wake-up call,” USAT editors argue, “not to get rid of al-Sadr, but to find ways to work with him and other influential players, including tribal and Sunni insurgency leaders, outside the Iraqi government.” They note the International Crisis Group’s suggestion of holding a conference and inviting Muqtada, but write that “the hard truth is that Washington has few realistic choices.” Even the achievement of “limited aims will require dealing with unsavory but powerful characters such as al-Sadr, instead of pretending that the dysfunctional Maliki government alone is capable of delivering,” they close.
Citation: Greg Hoadley. "US Papers Thursday: Forget Sovereignty?" IraqSlogger.com, 31 May 2007.