The Anbar Province Reconsidered
BY Herschel Smith
18 years ago
In Where is Anbar Headed? Where are the Marines Headed?, I cited the ABC News Report that claimed that the Pentagon officials were considering a major pullback of Marines from the Anbar Province, due in part to the most recent Devlin intelligence report covered by the Washington Post. Michael Fumento notes that the Post article stands in stark contrast to his recent experiences as an embedded reporter in Ramadi. I said in “Where is Anbar Headed” that it looked like the U.S. was either getting out of Anbar or getting serious about Anbar.
Today General Peter Pace denied reports that the Pentagon was considering a movement of Marines out of the Anbar province. Asked specifically whether serious consideration is being given to the idea of abandoning Al-Anbar to put more U.S. forces in Baghdad, Pace bluntly replied “no.” “You gave me a very straight question. I gave you a very straight answer. No. Why would we want to forfeit any part of Iraq to the enemy? We don’t,” he told reporters at a Pentagon briefing.
I believe that it is important to keep balance with respect to our understanding of the Anbar Province. Assuming that Pace is correct and that conditions and intentions don’t change, the U.S. will not abandon Anbar. I have discussed the alignment of some of the tribes in the Anbar Province with the Iraqi government and against al Qaeda, but it is also clear that these tribes cannot secure Anbar without the help of Iraqi security forces and more particularly U.S. forces.
In Coalition, Al Qaeda and Tribes Battle in Anbar and Diyala, I covered the recent battles against al Qaeda in which tribal elements participated.
On November 25, insurgents linked to al Qaeda attacked an Anbar tribe in an alliance of twenty five tribes who have vowed to fight al Qaeda. The insurgents attacked the Abu Soda tribe in Sofiya, near the provincial capital of Ramadi, with mortars and small arms, burning homes, in apparent revenge for their support of the Iraqi government. “Al Qaeda has decided to attack the tribes due to their support,
On November 30, 2006 at 11:22 pm, Pat said:
Just got back from Ramadi, and I know Col Devlin. He knows what he is doing.
A couple important notes though. The 25 tribes are only 11 . Get someone who can read Arabic look up the truth for you. Second, notice the comments about Al Qaeda using a local tribe. Again the reality is we most likely helped out an inter-tribe fight as opposed to killing any actual Al Qaeda members. I have no doubt Al Qaeda facilitated the attack, but whenever we kill 50 young Iraqi’s our job gets harder and Al Qaeda wins a little. Until we accept the truth in what we have there, we won’t be able to win, which I think is what Col Devlin meant.
On December 1, 2006 at 12:18 am, Herschel Smith said:
I don’t believe I said in this post or any other that 25 tribes had aligned themselves with the Iraqi government. If I did in some earlier post, it was citing a source rather than asserting it myself. In fact, I have pointed out all along that the tribes are divided, the leaders, some of them, do not even live in Iraq, the fighters that they have given the government are just recruits and have no specific military training, and that they tribes would likely not fare well without U.S. troops backing them (and may not even with U.S. troops backing them). As for internecine warfare between tribes, I have no comment, as I wasn’t there. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the four or five sources that I cited, all of which said about the same thing.
By the way, Pat. I notice that you did not leave me a valid e-mail address with which I can contact you to verify as best as I can that you were indeed in Ramadi. Why?
If you respond, please leave a valid e-mail address, or I will have to delete the comment.
On December 1, 2006 at 2:53 pm, Pat said:
Here is the post
Coalition, Al Qaeda and Tribes Battle in Anbar and Diyala
Published November 26th, 2006 by Herschel Smith in Iraq |
And it has been mentioned here about the tribes, although I realize a lot of what is in this blog is quotes from other sources. I did not mean to attack you as the source of that info, but rather it’s truthfulness. As to me having been in Ramadi, go ahead and send your questions, and I will answer what I can as long as it stays away from secure info.
On December 1, 2006 at 3:45 pm, Breakerjump said:
It does no good to make guesses – educated or not – on what certain officers might or might not have meant when they say things. It is best to take statements at face value and move on. The point here is that Iraq is in shambles, the trend line on U.S. casualties has a positive slope, Iran is posturing and neither Maliki or President Bush are being rational about any of this.
The U.S. government, down through the military as well as civilian leadership, is completely divided on proper course of action from here forward, which is acceptable as long as a consensus is reached quickly and action is taken swiftly.
It is a punch in the stomach to every military family in America when Bush gets on a stage somewhere and caterwauls incessantly about staying some flipping ‘course’ until the job is ‘done’.
On December 1, 2006 at 5:15 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Pat,
Thanks for the exchange of e-mail. I appreciate the willingness to provide evidence of who you said you were. You just wouldn’t believe the comments and e-mail I get from crackpots all over the world claiming to be people they aren’t.