INDC Journal

« Interview | Main | Operation Alljah: The Swarm »

September 07, 2007
Fallujan Differences with Senator Schumer

Posted by Bill

Senator Chuck Schumer's (spoken) statement on the Anbar Awakening against al Qaeda:

"And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting."

This assessment differs from the opinion expressed to me by a volunteer for the "Fallujah Protectors," the city's new neighborhood watch:

"Before [the Iraqi Police] did not have enough cover to hold their city. But right now, they got cover, like what you see: every single IP station has marines with them, to give them support every time the IP want it. Another thing? They didn't have weapons, but right now they have weapons, so they can do the right thing, kill the terrorists and survive."

And the opinion of a Fallujan interpreter, on the change that empowered the local police to improve the security situation:

"I think, what made (the) change, (is) the American support, the USA support to the IPs (Iraqi Police) and ... support to all the western region, and that's what's different from now and then."

I'll showcase more Fallujan perspective on the Awakening in forthcoming posts.



*****

Please consider a tax deductible donation to support independent journalism. Mark the subject line with "INDC Journal," if you are so inclined.

Posted by Bill at September 7, 2007 04:45 AM | TrackBack (0)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.indcjournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/dafrules/tapaz.cgi/2994

Comments

While I would hope the likes of Senator Schumer would have an audience limited to the "fire does not melt steel" crowd, it appears partisanship trumps evidence. I am curious what sense you have of how seriously Iraqis take pronouncements like those of Schumer and what reactions, if such are appropriate to express, the Marines in Fallujah might have.

Posted by: Flea at September 7, 2007 08:32 AM

Folks over here might miss specific statements or political gambits in the US (they're pretty busy), but plenty gets through, and many are well aware of the general political atmosphere in the United States.

This affects politics in Iraq because some players prep themselves for American withdrawal, rather than counting on long term US brokerage of national unity. The prospect of withdrawal discourages the long view in favor of jockeying for position in the aftermath. That said, US civilian and military strategy presses forward.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at September 7, 2007 08:46 AM

The greatest encouragement one can give the enemy is to downgrade the American military and you can assure the enemy will keep killing by telling them you will cut and run. Chuckie the nutty squirrel did both at one time. I let him know through his senate email that I will not come running to NY nor contribute one dime when another attack occurs. I hope that thousands of Fire/Rescue organizations do the same. Stay home and let er burn. Let Chuckie and Shrillary get in the rubble and do the job themselves. They live in a sewer anyway. NYC firefighters should call in sick immediately after an attack since they have been slandered (on a daily basis) by the democrats since 9-11.

Posted by: Scrapiron at September 7, 2007 09:27 AM

Don't take Chuckles Schumer too seriously.

Posted by: Captain America at September 7, 2007 10:46 AM

Chuck Shumer represents the worst in American politics. An individual who would compromise his country for his party and for power. Our military and their families should remeber him and the other traitorous libs on election day.

Posted by: Tony Fotia at September 7, 2007 11:00 AM

SHUMER SHOULD HIDE HIS HEAD IN SHAME.HE REPRESENTS THE WORST OF THE WORST IN LIBERAL POLITICS,SHAME ON HIM,JUST THINK HOW OUR BRAVE SOLDIERS THIN WHEN THEY READ THIS CRAP!!! HE SHOULD BE CHARGES WITH TREASON.HE AND THE OTHER USUAL SUSPECTS HATE THE USA AND ARE CAST OVERS FROM THE ANTI WAR CROWD OF VIETNAM.THEY DISGUST ME!!!

Posted by: nate at September 7, 2007 11:21 AM

I wonder if Iraqis fear the Democrats. If Democrats get elected, troops are withdrawn. Iraqis are left to face the rebuilding and various threats of violence alone.

Furthermore, if America is withdraw, Iran becomes a perceived threat. I don't think Iran will invade Iraq because even a Hillary might not hesistate to launch a strike against Iran if they invade Iraq, but I assume within Iraq, it is a real perceived threat given their history with Iran.

Posted by: jeepndesert at September 7, 2007 01:05 PM

Good questions to ask Iraqis would be...

Do you fear Iran?

Do you fear if Democrats are elected and troops are withdrawn, that an invasion from Iran will occur unimpeded?

Posted by: jeepndesert at September 7, 2007 01:11 PM

How does the fact that your story of how this came about bears no relation to the reporting of David Ware (for one example) who reports the Anbar/US alliance happened in January (prior to the Surge) and how does it jibe with the fact that the troops surged into Baghdad (not Anbar). Fact is, Bill, arming one side of a future civil war doesn't make much long-term sense, unless that is you need the goal of creating "success" for the short-term, so those morons in Congress will pipe down.

I have a cousin due to deploy to Fallujah next month. Whatever the cause of this lull, I sure hope it stays in place during his 7 to 9 months in country.

Oh, and for just the pure ad homimem of it all, Goldstein's friends and followers and their ability to swallow any pablum from embedded reporters, but not pablum from independent reporters strikes me almost as silly as blaming the quiet in Fallujah on a tactic the President employed to unsuccessfully pacify Baghdad.

Godspeed.

Posted by: tim at September 7, 2007 02:02 PM

tim,
Your lack of research is showing. The 'surge' was a package deal, involving not only an increase in troops, but a change in handling the terrorists and thugs in Iraq. True, arming one side of a future civil war does not make much sense - lucky thing there is no civil war except in the minds of the Clintons, HeinzKerrys, and Schumer types. A battle between 2-5% of the population does not a civil war make - no matter how often you say it.
Finally, you claim that the Petraeus strategy is not working in Baghdad, despite evidence that in many parts of Baghdad it is working. Wishful thinking perhaps on your part?

Posted by: Perk at September 7, 2007 04:20 PM

tim -

You wrote:

How does the fact that your story of how this came about bears no relation to the reporting of David Ware (for one example) who reports the Anbar/US alliance happened in January (prior to the Surge) and how does it jibe with the fact that the troops surged into Baghdad (not Anbar).

You are misinformed. Since the surge, 4,000 were initially announced (in January), and 6500 - 7000 troops were actually added at any given time to Anbar Province once it was executed.

These troops have been applied to stop the "whack-a-mole" problem by assisting provincial, tribal and city security forces in "holding" and "building" areas that are "cleared," as well as projecting force into contentious areas.

In addition, I was here in Fallujah in January. The Anbar/US alliance began in Ramadi many months before that around September 2006. It was not present to any major degree in Fallujah in January, which is east of Ramadi; the movement spread from the west.

Bottom line: you are touting incorrect information, arrogantly. David Ware is a very knowledgeable reporter on the Sunni insurgency, so I'd bet that you're misrepresenting him. You may simply remember CNN first reporting it via him in January.

Please stop presenting incorrect information during the course of your arguments, it does not assist intelligent debate - from those of all positions - about this war.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at September 7, 2007 05:26 PM

Just for a moment, imagine IF, as we moved to remove Saddam, and made it clear that ANY dictator or jihadist across the globe who supported jihad was a potential target, perhaps the next target, IF the entire Congress, the entire electorate, the American people, had voiced in a loud single voice "we are mad as hell and won't take any more of this islamojihadist crap!" where we'd be today?

An enemy in the field who can muster hope, muster it from the very people he is fighting, can last for decades. An enemy in the field who believes that he merely has to hang on while his enemy loses its determination, will survive, and thrive.

Thus it has been for the last many years. That paper tiger Osama spoke of seven years ago? Seems to be still alive as a mere paper tiger thanks to the Schumers of the world.

It is not at all too late. We just need to voice that loud voice, and show these cowardly bastards in Jihadland that if they want to meet Allah, we will be more than happy to arrange that meeting for them. Once the jihadists show they can accomplish nothing against a united America, you can bet that the populations will stop supporting them...just like they have in Anbar. But if we continue to show that we are more than ready to cut and run, thyrow in the towel, the locals will cast their fate to those around them with the most guns, just to stay alive...and the jihad wins.

Posted by: coldwarrior415 at September 7, 2007 07:42 PM

Chuckie is and always has been a traitor to this country. Fortunetly he lives in NY and works in D.C. which ups the chance (good for America) that he will be killed by his frinds, the terrorists. It will be a day to celebrate.

Posted by: Scrapiron at September 7, 2007 08:18 PM

It is a good thing that most Americans don't buy Schumer's bull or Polisi's disinformation. The Dems consistantly act this way out of jeolousy. The fact that GWB is following a strong plan that is starting to show positive results is just killing them. They actually think he is lucky that history has laid this opportunity on his lap, all history laid on Clinton's lap was Monica..

Posted by: Ralph Crossen at September 8, 2007 06:43 AM

CHUCK DOES NOT CARE WHAT WE THINK,BECAUSE HERE IN NY THE MORONS WIN. LIBERIALS ARE TO DUMB TO REALIZE THE LIES THE DEMS TELL, THESE PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS BE FOLLOWERS IN LIFE . ANYBODY THAT BELITTLES BRAVE US TROOPS SHOULD BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE.ALSO SHILLARY IS BULL ALSO,SHE SHOULD NEVER BEEN ELECTED TO NY SENATE,SHE DIDNT LIVE HERE ITS A LIE LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE THEY SELL. IF THEY GET WHITE HOUSE WE WILL ALL BE IN BIG TROUBLE ,ME I AM BUYING MORE GUNS TO PROTECT MY FAMILY,GOD BLESSUS WE WILL NEED IT...........

Posted by: CHEECH at September 8, 2007 07:27 AM

Chuck Schumer is my Senator here in Upstate New York-He's going to hear from me on Monday. Does he even know that not all military are "soldiers"?. Army has soldiers, Marines are Marines. He uses the term soldier as if all the troops in Iraq are in the Army. That alone shows how ignorant he is. If NYC were separate from New York, he nor Hillary would ever win in New York State.

Posted by: Renate at September 9, 2007 05:38 PM

I have no idea if the surge (+ new tactics) is working or not. I hear reports that even Petreaus and those close to him would admit that it's actually too soon to tell. But at least in regards to Anbar, Schumer is right, the surge has nothing to do with Anbar. The populace got fed up with AQ before the surge and they started their Sahawa al Anbar movement in the fall of 2006.

Posted by: James Cranner at September 11, 2007 01:10 AM

James -

You said:

But at least in regards to Anbar, Schumer is right, the surge has nothing to do with Anbar. The populace got fed up with AQ before the surge and they started their Sahawa al Anbar movement in the fall of 2006.

Please reread comments I've made above, as well as the comments by actual locals in the post. In Ramadi the tribes would have been able to clear out AQ, but it would have been much bloodier, and taken much longer, without the US alliance.

In Fallujah, I'm not sure that the locals would have ever been able to get rid of AQI without Americans. This has been assisted by the surge, though it's arguable that the american forces prior to the surge would have been sufficient. But that wasn't even quite Schumer's argument.

Schumer is incorrect as one gets into any level of detail.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at September 11, 2007 01:30 AM

-
av

Search
Extras


Credits
Movable Type