Secret weapon?

[Botnst]

Secret killing program is key in Iraq, Woodward says

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The dramatic drop in violence in Iraq is due in large part to a secret program the U.S. military has used to kill terrorists, according to a new book by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Bob Woodward.
Bob Woodward's book, "The War Within: Secret White House History 2006-2008," came out Monday.

Bob Woodward's book, "The War Within: Secret White House History 2006-2008," came out Monday.

The program -- which Woodward compares to the World War II era Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb -- must remain secret for now or it would "get people killed," Woodward said Monday on CNN's Larry King Live.

"It is a wonderful example of American ingenuity solving a problem in war, as we often have," Woodward said.

In "The War Within: Secret White House History 2006-2008," Woodward disclosed the existence of secret operational capabilities developed by the military to locate, target and kill leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgent leaders.

National security adviser Stephen Hadley, in a written statement reacting to Woodward's book, acknowledged the new strategy. Yet he disputed Woodward's conclusion that the "surge" of 30,000 U.S. troops into Iraq was not the primary reason for the decline in violent attacks.

"It was the surge that provided more resources and a security context to support newly developed techniques and operations," Hadley wrote.

Woodward, associate editor of the Washington Post, wrote that along with the surge and the new covert tactics, two other factors helped reduce the violence.Video Watch Bob Woodward explain the strategy »

One was the decision of militant cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to order a cease-fire by his Mehdi Army. The other was the "Anbar Awakening" movement that saw Sunni tribes aligning with U.S. troops to battle al Qaeda in Iraq.

Woodward told Larry King that while there is a debate over how much credit the new secret operations should get for the drop in violence, he concluded it "accounts for a good portion."

"I would somewhat compare it to the Manhattan Project in World War II," he said "It's a ski slope right down in a matter of months, cutting the violence in half. This isn't going to happen with the bunch of joint security stations or the surge."

The top secret operations, he said, will "some day in history ... be described to people's amazement."

While he would not reveal the details, Woodward said the terrorists who have been targeted were already aware of the capabilities.
advertisement

"The enemy has a heads up because they've been getting wiped out and a lot of them have been killed," he said. "It's not news to them.

"If you were a member of al Qaeda or the resistance or some extremist militia, you would be wise to get your rear end out of town," Woodward said. "It is very dangerous."

[Mistress]

Pig bullets.

[Medmech]

This explains Chuck Norris' disappearance.

[dynalow]

Originally Posted by Howitzer

This explains Chuck Norris' disappearance.

He surfaced on Hannity & what's his name last night.

[dynalow]

Today's WSJ

Generals Behaving Badly

September 9, 2008

When Abraham Lincoln famously sent word to Gen. George McClellan that he'd like to "borrow" the army if the general wasn't planning on using it, the commander of Union forces likely did not take it kindly. McClellan, after all, was a man whose letters home referred to Lincoln as an "idiot," "a well-meaning baboon" and other colorful language.


In the first few pages of "The War Within," Bob Woodward opens with another presidential remark that offended another wartime general. This time the recipient was the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey. During a videoconference with Baghdad, the president said, "George, we're not playing for a tie. I want to make sure we all understand this." Gen. Casey, Mr. Woodward writes, took this as "an affront to his dignity that he would long remember."

Whether or not Gen. Casey long remembered, "The War Within" makes clear his disdain for his commander in chief. If the views and remarks attributed to Gen. Casey are not accurate, Mr. Woodward has done him a grave injustice. If they are accurate, they come as further evidence of the obstacles President George W. Bush had to overcome to get his commanders to start winning in Iraq.

Opening with Gen. Casey also says something about Mr. Woodward. There's a case, I suppose, for using the general who opposed the surge to open what is hailed as the definitive account of that surge (not to mention using Robert McNamara, the Defense secretary who helped lose Vietnam to end the book). Surely, however, that would be the same case for wrapping the definitive account of the strategy that brought Robert E. Lee to Appomattox around Gen. McClellan.

Gen. Casey, after all, was the commander who all along maintained that the solution in Iraq was for America to draw down its forces -- even after the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. He was the commander who later that year was given his own chance to secure Baghdad with Operations Together Forward I and II, and failed. Most of all, he is the commander who was wrong when the president was right to insist that Baghdad could be secured and al Qaeda dealt a harsh blow with more troops.

Gen. Casey's continued adherence to a failed strategy does not make him a dishonorable man. It does make him an odd choice to serve as the foundation for the charge that the president was out of touch with the war. As evidence, both the general and the journalist point to questions about how many of the enemy we were killing as a sign that "the president did not get it."

Then again, maybe it's Gen. Casey and Mr. Woodward who did not get it. The questions the president asked were driven by something everyone in the West Wing worried about. Every night for years, Americans tuning into the evening news were greeted by the same image from Iraq: a burning car or Humvee, accompanied by a fresh report about soldiers or Marines who'd been blown up by an improvised explosive device or suicide bomb.

Nor did these images exist in a vacuum. A media obsessed with body counts featured grim roll calls of the dead, marking each macabre "milestone" -- 1,500 war dead, 2,000 war dead -- along the way. In this context, was it really unreasonable for a president to ask his commander on the ground if we were fighting back, when it sure didn't look that way to the American people?

The same might be said of the one truly original take offered by Mr. Woodward. This is his curious assertion that it's not the surge that has produced the great reduction in violence in Iraq. The reduced violence, he says, is the result of the increased lethality of covert operations against terrorist leaders and operatives.

Which brings up two interesting points. First, we are led to find fault with a president allegedly obsessed with a "kill the bastards" approach to Iraq. But then we are asked to accept that the reason we're now seeing success in Iraq because we're . . . killing the bastards.

Second, the surge was a shift in mission, not simply an addition of five brigades. Until the surge, we had pursued a political solution, hoping that the answer to Iraq was the rise of a democratic government that would persuade Iraqis to come together for their future. The surge, by contrast, finally recognized the obvious: Until Iraqis started feeling safe in their own homes and neighborhoods, there would be no compromise or rebuilding.

Sophisticates have never liked Mr. Bush for his preference for words like "win" and "victory" to describe what America is trying to do in Iraq. And if Mr. Woodward's latest contribution is any clue, they'll never forgive him for doing something even worse: proving it can be done.

[DieselAddict]

Nonsense. If Bush had listened to Gen. Shinzeki's advice before the invasion to send half a million troops to secure the peace, there wouldn't have been this mess to begin with. And the surge worked primarily because Al-Sadr disappeared and Sunni jihadists had started turning against Al-Qaeda, and then were paid by US taxpayers to keep the peace in their neighborhoods. The "secret weapon" that actually did the job is most likely this "appeasement" of Sunni jihadists.

[pj67coll]

[QUOTE=DieselAddict;1960385]Nonsense. If Bush had listened to Gen. Shinzeki's advice before the invasion to send half a million troops to secure the peace, there wouldn't have been this mess to begin with.[QUOTE]

That could be true. Pity Bush didn't evidently think he would have the backing of the US populace to send in that number of troops. Remember all the talk of this not being another Vietnam? Of this being an in and out operation? etc. That could be what comes of dealing with a population percieved to be without the necessary backbone for the fight.

And the surge worked primarily because Al-Sadr disappeared

He didn't dissappear. There are sources that claim he was getting creamed by the strenghtening US and Iraqi military forces and that's the reason he told his mob to stand down. This from CNN. No doubt time will tell.

and Sunni jihadists had started turning against Al-Qaeda.

Was that not the whole point to begin with?

- Peter.

[AustinsCE]

The surge worked because the insurgents were paid off. It was in the LA times?

[MTI]

Originally Posted by AustinsCE

The surge worked because the insurgents were paid off. It was in the LA times?

Dang, that was the "MTI Plan" all along . . . carpet bomb Afghanistan and Iraq with MasterCards and Sharper Image catalogs . . .

[A264172]

Originally Posted by AustinsCE

The surge worked because the insurgents were paid off. It was in the LA times?

If that turns out to be the case, does China get credit for the win?

[tankdriver]

Woodward said something about a new identification technology, or something like that, on 60Mins Sunday. I thought this would be about that. I guess it was a pretty effective teaser, because I'm tempted to buy it just to find out more about this new tech.

[AustinsCE]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usiraq14jan14,0,7596784.story?coll=la-home-center

BAGHDAD -- Eager to cement the security gains of last year's troop buildup, the U.S. military has shifted its strategy from the streets to the corridors of power in a high-stakes effort to persuade Iraq's wary Shiite leaders to put thousands of predominantly Sunni men, many of them former insurgents, on the government payroll.

More than 70,000 members of mostly Sunni Arab groups now work for American forces in neighborhood security programs. Transferring them to the control of the Shiite Muslim-dominated government, as policemen and members of public works crews, has taken on a new urgency as American troops begin to withdraw, officials indicated in recent interviews, meetings and briefings.

Yeah I don't know if you just act cynical towards everything for the sake of looking like... well, there's a link if anyone's interested.

[A264172]

Well the LA times, I guess there couldn't be any secret weapon then... ridiculous.

After further consideration, I think the Chinese would get a partial credit.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

Nonsense. If Bush had listened to Gen. Shinzeki's advice before the invasion to send half a million troops to secure the peace, there wouldn't have been this mess to begin with. And the surge worked primarily because Al-Sadr disappeared and Sunni jihadists had started turning against Al-Qaeda, and then were paid by US taxpayers to keep the peace in their neighborhoods. The "secret weapon" that actually did the job is most likely this "appeasement" of Sunni jihadists.

Shinseki was clearly wrong in what he said: That to defeat Saddam's army would require a half-million men. People have changed Shinseki's argument to fit the aftermath where had he said it would take a half-million men, he would STILL have been wrong.

What it took was the will to fight. Al Sadr didn't quit fighting because he got Jesus in his heart. He quit fighting because we killed his army faster than he could raise it. After his defeat became obvious to everybody, including Sadr, he chose a more peaceful route to power. Though he has STILL not embraced democracy. And he still lives in Iran ... coincidentally.

What changed the Iraqi Sunnis was the increasing brutality of the Al Qaedistas against the Iraqi tribal leadership and Iraqi women (especially) and men who didn't embrace their lunatic version of Islam. The incompetent Iraqi government did not wish to share power with their former enemies and so the coalition military stepped in and helped the Sunnis do what they wanted to do: Kill Al Qaeda and take back their own country. The central government is still reluctant to recognize Sunni leadership but the coalition military has essentially told them to get used to it.

As the Sunnis have taken-up political and security responsibilities and continue to kill Al Qaeda the coalition has gone back to garrison duty. Casualties are at the lowest they have been since the invasion and the Iraqis are taking charge. That's a good thing, right?

The coalition military is doing what it should have done 5 years ago -- counter-insurgency by killing bad guys and helping good guys.

Don't confuse what I argue with support for this big army strategy. I think that is a proven loser. What we should have done is run a classic CIA insurgency and toppled Saddam the old-fashioned way, then let the Iraqis struggle over what came next. But once we were in there in force we had 2 choices -- win or surrender. In my estimation ... that is no choice at all.

B

[pj67coll]

Originally Posted by Botnst

As the Sunnis have taken-up political and security responsibilities and continue to kill Al Qaeda the coalition has gone back to garrison duty. Casualties are at the lowest they have been since the invasion and the Iraqis are taking charge. That's a good thing, right?

Not if you're a raving leftoid for whom US victory seems to be a bitter pill.

But once we were in there in force we had 2 choices -- win or surrender. In my estimation ... that is no choice at all.

Could not agree more. This war ultimately is not about Iraq. It's about America. Weather or not the US has the balls to fight and the will to win. Iran is financing the war not so much to control Iraq as to humiliate the USA. With the nightly TV parade of the likes of Kennedy, Pelosi, Obama et al bleating for exit strategies and withdrawl over the last few years they had every reason to think they'd manage it. Must really be pissing them off to find that against all odds some yanks are just too damm contrary to get the message that we have to lose.

- Peter.


B[/QUOTE]