Get Used To It

Knight-Ridder, via the San Jose Mercury News, is reporting that top military brass expected insurgency to rise after Saddam's capture:

A top-secret report prepared for the American military command in Iraq just before Saddam Hussein was caught predicted that guerrilla attacks would increase after his arrest, as more anti-Saddam Iraqis joined the resistance.

The report argued that seizing Saddam could provoke more attacks by making the insurgency more acceptable to Sunni Muslims who weren't members of Saddam's Baath Party elite, according to senior administration officials who've seen it. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the report is classified.

….

The theory is that the Sunnis think it's better to force Americans out now, while there's still a chance of restoring Sunni political power. The Sunnis, including Saddam, have dominated Iraq's political system for most of the last century. They don't want to wait for elections, caucuses, a constitution that would hand power to the majority Shiites or the creation of an anti-Sunni coalition of Shiites and Kurds.

The article notes that the report's assessment differs "from the official military view": "I don't think [Saddam's capture is] going to be good for recruiting," Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Comments

[Ruthless]

Isn't it more in the interests of the Shia's to push out the Merikans so the Shia's can commence to give the Sunni's the ass-whomping they so richly deserve? What do they know at that San Jose paper anyhow?
All the Kurds have to do is rub out the spies in their midst Saddam was paying.
Merikans out now!
Let the games/justice begin!

[joe]

Richard Myers makes me puke. He is, without a doubt, the biggest politicized ass kisser in uniform since Welhelm Keitel. "Oh yes, boss, that's brilliant, boss, everything is going perfectly, and just as you predicted." I expect such behavior from Ari Fliescher or Karen Hughes, but he's a uniformed career officer fer Chrissakes!

[Blixa]

Whether Saddam's capture will or will not increase the insurgency is rather academic, seems to me. We have captured him. We will see.

What the article shows is that (as should not be surprising) the military engages in contingency planning and is not overly Pollyanna'ish about it. That is as it should be and therefore is encouraging I guess. Not that I ever suspected otherwise for one moment.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what value the article has. Besides engaging in the fun parlor-game of beating down "Hopes that Saddam's capture might end the resistance" straw-men, perhaps. (I am not aware of a single person in the entire world who thinks or thought for one second that Saddam's capture might "end" the resistance.)

Oh, and BTW the feigned shock that the "official military view" does not fess up to all this is quite cute.

[joe]

Cute! That's the word!

I was filling out a crossword puzzle, and a I got the following clue:

"adj describing people who believe the government should be honest its dealings with the citizenry" Four letters.

I guess I can finish now.

[joe]

Question for the judges: Does the Keitel reference violate Goodwin's Law?

[Blixa]

joe,

I take it that was sarcasm?

Look, perhaps there's a very good reason why anyone would want the military to volunteer, in press conferences, the complete results of all their internal findings and contengency plans - and in particular to get behind a "now it's safe for anti-Sunnis to fight us" position. I just can't think of what that reason might be.

A common response to this and related "honesty" complaints is, "Well, I want them to say it just so I know they're aware of the possibility and planning for it". When I hear this I'm always amused at the assumption that unless a person in a position of power volunteers information in a press conference, he can't possibly be aware of that information or be planning for it. Apparently in this case, the military can't possibly be aware of or planning for anything that Richard Myers (or as you termed him, "the government") doesn't say in a press conference.

[Blixa]

oops, "anti-Sunnis" should read "anti-Saddam Sunnis", of course

[Blixa]

p.s. I'm not even sure I see the "dishonesty" here to begin with. Here's what Richard Myers is quoted as having said: "I don't think it's going to be good for recruiting". Et cetera. Perhaps that is what he actually thinks. He may, even, be correct. (We'll see.) The criticism (or rather, feigned outrage) appears to be that he didn't, subsequently, share with reporters the results of a top-secret report predicting something like the opposite.

Again, I find that feigned outrage quite cute.

[TM Lutas]

I've actually seen some military interviews with opinions ranging from we hope this will give them a clue it's hopeless to it might increase attacks as the desperate insurgents who are guilty of death penalty level crimes make a last push but then a fade away as they run out of money, ammunition, and bodies.

The people who ran the rape rooms do not have a future in Iraq. They can't give in as nobody will forgive them.

As the US gets closer to elections and ceding power to an Iraqi government, attacks by non-dead enders should die down. Even the densest Iraqi will eventually get it that we're serious about leaving.

[rvman]

Attacks will INCREASE in the leadup to elections. The insurgents will know that widely-accepted elections will kill their chances, so they will do everything they can to sabotage them. Expect many of the leading candidates to be assasinated.

[Blixa]

Kevin Carson:

Do you have evidence that "I don't think it's going to be good for recruiting" is not Richard Myers's genuine opinion? Lemme know,

[Frenk]

I'm hoping Bush will hold another big ceremony -- prefereably shipboard -- to announce that combat operations have ended, the leader is caught, etc. And that flight suit! wowsa.

[M. Simon]

Frenk is just promoting more Bushitler lies. He really doesn't want the truth to get out.

Bush needs to get up on the Moon and tell the world who their overlord is. "I control all you fuckers and don't you forget it." Would be appropriate.

Frenck is just covering for Bush.

Why would thtat be Frenk? You some kind of right wing Christian fascist trying to hide the real nature of the Bush regime?

[Frenk]

M. Simon: Huh?

[Kevin Carson]

Blixa,

One reason might be that the U.S. government, including its military policy, is supposed to be responsible to the people. And the American people are entitled to know "their" leaders' genuine opinions on the likely outcome of a policy, rather than just the official happy news.