Someone Didn't Get The Word

Fareed Zakaria:

The Democrats are having the hardest time with the new reality. Every candidate is committed to "ending the war" and bringing our troops back home. The trouble is, the war has largely ended, and precisely because our troops are in the middle of it.

Ah, those sad, sad, Democrats. So unaware that the war's over. The dude who killed at least fourteen and wounded seventeen in Tikrit must, like the Democrats, have been wearing partisan blinders when he failed to acknowledge the surge's success in bringing the war to an end. Similarly, the US military has these newish Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicles known as MRAPs. As you can tell from the name, the vehicles are designed to be resistant to roadside bombs. Only trouble is insurgents seems to have figured out how to foil them, since we had our first instance of a roadside bomb blowing up an MRAP just on Saturday.

Obviously, though, this improvement in the tactics and doctrine of anti-American fighters in Iraq can't be a big deal since the war is largely over. If the war were still happening, this kind of thing might illustrate the illusory nature of tactical improvements in the face of a bleak strategic situation. But since the war is "largely" over already there's probably no problem here.

Comments

You're using the wrong metrics, Matthew.

How much oil is being pumped?

Posted by Don Williams | January 22, 2008 8:57 AM

I wonder who's angling to become America's first Muslim Secretary-of-State in a McCain Administration?...

Posted by RKU | January 22, 2008 9:03 AM

So, as long as we're there the war is over? And if we leave it starts anew? Well, whatever the number of troops required it'll amount to several billions per month in expense for decades. Nice gig if you're a contractor or supplier. Not so nice if you're a prole stuck in the sands with a rifle. Bush really should hang for all this and more. I doubt his post-presidency plans involve much travel to various regions of the world. The Secret Service doesn't have enough warm bodies for all the bombs and bullets they'd be absorbing during the trips.

Posted by steve duncan | January 22, 2008 9:08 AM

If Fareed Zakaria says anything else, he's out of a job.

Posted by ed | January 22, 2008 9:11 AM

OK. Fine.

War is Over.

Now, Decree Victory, and let's go home.

Posted by ROGNM | January 22, 2008 9:12 AM

Oh, and who is this Rezko charactor? And what is Obama's relationship with him?

As far as I can tell Rezko is under indictment for corruption and is a very close friend of the Obamas. Close enough to help Obama buy his house and then sell Obama an additional slice of land from an adjacent parcel.

Posted by ken | January 22, 2008 9:12 AM

See!

If EVERYBODY would STOP talking about global warming that problem would go away TOO!

SHhhh!

Posted by owlbear1 | January 22, 2008 9:14 AM

Warlordism more than extra US troops moved the war off the front page. The draw-down of half our troops or so won't change that. Iraq is moving to that ignorable spot in the American physche occupied by Afghanistan, and (perhaps eventually) Korea.

That's what the neocons/McCain/Cheney always wanted -- a strong long-term military presence right next to the oil. Iran is a convenient excuse (and the war certainly strengthened Iran's hand), but decades down the road the Chinese might want the oil. Our troop presence will quell any such thoughts. Or so their thinking goes.

Ridiculous? Sure, on many levels. But that's the strategy. Will HRC or Obama have the guts to just walk away from a situation that seems manageable (if expensive) and let Iran "win" (as critics will charge). I doubt it (though obama might).

Sad to say it, but it looks like we've been out-foxed.

Posted by jim | January 22, 2008 9:16 AM

War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery. Not just pretty slogans anymore.

Posted by Jeff Fecke | January 22, 2008 9:17 AM

Don Williams -- excellent first comment.

ken -- go back into your hole. Off topic smear that belongs at Red State.

Posted by MarkC | January 22, 2008 9:18 AM

Actually, if you read the whole article Zakaria has a more nuanced point. He's not at all saying that the war is over in the sense you suggest.

Posted by RM | January 22, 2008 9:22 AM

This is really a distortion of Zakaria's column by way of selective quotation out of context of one unfortunate phrase. He says a little later on, "Now the dominant feature of the war is the proliferation of local ceasefires across the country. The real questions that candidates need to answer are these: How do they interpret this new reality? What would they do to maintain the new stability? What does all this mean for U.S. foreign and military policy in the next few years? . . . By most estimates, peacekeeping in Iraq would take more foreign troops than are there right now. While it is all well and good to say that the United States should not be policing a civil war, the fact is that we are, and were we to leave, it would likely start up again. This is not the war that we signed up for and it is not really about fighting Al Qaeda, but it is the reality."

So his point is that it's now a different war.

Posted by gordonminor | January 22, 2008 9:26 AM

Also pertinant is the fact that we've walled off so much of Baghdad. By doing so, we hamstring commerce. And if we don't allow commerce, Iraq will remain a gimp-state indefinitely. Although some wouldn't mind that, I do.

Posted by Berkeley C | January 22, 2008 9:26 AM

Of course the war is over. I haven't heard any of the candidates talk much about it, nor are there any media covering it anymore. It must be over.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | January 22, 2008 9:31 AM

And how bloody was 2007 for the US, compared to other years?

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | January 22, 2008 9:32 AM

The war will continue until there is no more money to be made on it, or more profitable opportunities appear elsewhere. We will then be left holding the bag. So simple!

Posted by lambert strether | January 22, 2008 9:32 AM

We don't have money for health insurance / care, but we spend how much a day for this non-war?

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | January 22, 2008 9:34 AM

The war has largely ended because our troops are in the middle of the war that has largely ended?

Posted by Gary | January 22, 2008 9:34 AM

Mission accomplished. Except, not.

Does anyone seriously think a few billion a month and a soldier or two a day is a cost that we can sustain long-term?

Posted by postxian | January 22, 2008 9:36 AM

The war has largely ended because our troops are in the middle of the war that has ended because we're in the middle of it. The war. You know -- that one that ended.

We're here, because we're here,
because we're here,
because we're here...

-- WW1 Soldier's Song,
to the tune of Auld Lang Syne

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | January 22, 2008 9:46 AM

Another metric:
Let's check in at the stock market and see how Bush's Iraq strategy/fiscal policy is doing:

http://healthmedia.umich.edu/puffcity/animations/14_Audio/sfx/bombwhistle.wav

Posted by Don Williams | January 22, 2008 9:51 AM

I recently moved to Stockholm from the U.S. and yesterday spoke the first Iraqi I've ever met. She's an immigrant who left Iraq 4 months ago. I asked how it was and she just starting crying, saying everything was different and they can't do anything. If that is what we call victory, I hate to see a defeat. Victory should mean victory for everyone, not just the hawks in the U.S.

Posted by bajsa | January 22, 2008 9:55 AM

While MY's take on this column was less than nuanced, this was still the worst Zakaria column in a long time.

Posted by Reality Man | January 22, 2008 10:01 AM

Matt, do yourself a favor and read the damned column instead of just Andrew's excerpt of it.

The quote above does Zakaria a disservice. It's actually a well thought-out and insightful piece. We can't claim to be the reality-based community then pretend nothing has happened in Iraq over the past year. The situation has changed, and we need to adapt and react to those changes. Zakaria's suggestions are good ones. If you disagree, fine, but do it on substance, not with a dismissive wave of the hand. This column deserves more than that.

Posted by J.B. | January 22, 2008 10:14 AM

You quoted Zakaria out of context and you wouldn't have done so if you read the article, Matthew.

I thought it was the other side that did this?

Posted by Suffering Bruin | January 22, 2008 10:28 AM

if 'nuanced' means 'ridiculous', then i agree that the zakaria article is more nuanced than illustrated by the above quote.

Posted by cha cha cha | January 22, 2008 10:43 AM

Actually, in point of fact, the war was over years ago.

What we have isn't a war (aside from the civil war between Iraqis). In terms of what we're doing there, it's an occupation, not a war.

Posted by liberal | January 22, 2008 11:06 AM

As long as they are defining victory as some day when nobody is shooting at American troops, then the victory will never ever come. The war only ends when troops come home.

Posted by Cody | January 22, 2008 11:10 AM

why is it that each time some right of center blogger badmouths the Democrats, the same day I learn of another suicide bombing in Iraq;learn that safe drinking water is tough to get; that electricity is seldom available 24 hours per day and the political "resolution:" remains--well, unresolved? And yet, another swipe at the Democrats because--hey, the war is over and we won. And to celebrate, we will keep our troops in Iraq for how much longer. Oh, well. It is not the poster of such junk that is serving so he is ok.

Posted by fred lapides | January 22, 2008 11:16 AM

That is Fareed "Conventional Wisdom" Zakaria for you.

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | January 22, 2008 11:33 AM

The MRAP was not the first one blown up, there have been others. This event was the first DEATH suffered by a person in an MRAP. The MRAP is designed to fall apart while protecting its passengers.

Posted by J. | January 22, 2008 11:34 AM

Frankly, I don't see what any of you see as wrong in this article (other than, you know, btching).

Let's quote some sections:

"American forces in Iraq have done superbly but the violence has not ended because they won great military victories. Instead, the adversary —the Sunnis—switched sides. Instead of shooting Americans they are now allied with them.... But it's a fragile peace. Stephen Biddle, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who has made several trips to Iraq to advise Gen. David Petraeus, says, "If you go south of Baghdad you will see Sunni units that are the most impressive Iraqi fighting forces in the country, never defeated, with their command structure, tight discipline, equipment and gear all intact. They have simply made a decision to stop fighting."

Does anybody seriously think the Sunnis and Shiites now love each other?

Clearly they don't. Zakaria seems to be indicating that they are re-grouping to see what happens next.

Case in point:

"...both sides remain extremely wary. The Shiites suspect the former insurgents' motives; the Sunnis say that jobs and weapons are being withheld by the government. As of now, the United States Army is the organizer, financier, guarantor and enforcer of the peace.

Iraq remains deeply divided. The national reconciliation that Iraqi politicians promised has not occurred."

How is Zakaria claiming Iraq has turned into Kumbayah-land?

This doesn't sound like Kumbayah-land to me:

"The non-Kurdish parts of the country remain utterly dysfunctional, and chaos and warlordism are growing in the south. Of the 2.5 million Iraqis who have fled the country, a trickle—a few thousand—have returned home."

"This is why Republican rhetoric about Iraq is also somewhat unhinged. John McCain deserves credit for supporting the surge. But the notion, articulated by many Republicans, that if we just stay the course a bit longer we will achieve "victory" is loopy. Iraq is seen—and will be for years—by the rest of the Middle East as a cautionary tale and not a model.

I think I get what Zakaria says about McCain's support for the surge - he seems to be saying that the surge was the best option available at the time, and the numerous local cease fires which have occurred would not have happened without it.

Zakaria then basically says that the only way to ensure that the surge isn't a mirage and a waste of time and money (which certainly would be held against McCain) is to seriously peace-keep in Iraq:

"It's similar to the challenge the Clinton administration confronted in the Balkans in the 1990s—where the mission was to end a civil war and keep the peace.

The problem with such a mission is that it requires lots of troops. By most estimates, peacekeeping in Iraq would take more foreign troops than are there right now. While it is all well and good to say that the United States should not be policing a civil war, the fact is that we are, and were we to leave, it would likely start up again. This is not the war that we signed up for and it is not really about fighting Al Qaeda, but it is the reality."

And I frankly can't disagree with these last statements:

"The most intelligent strategy for the United States now is a combined political and military one. If we are to engage in peacekeeping, the operation needs to be internationally recognized, sanctioned and supported—as it was in Bosnia.

...

Over the next year if the violence continues to decline, countries like India, Poland and South Africa could be persuaded to relieve American troops. With sustained and focused efforts, over time, American forces could draw down substantially. The mission could then become what it was always billed as, a genuinely international effort to assist the Iraqi people in founding a new nation"

Zakaria is basically saying: Iraq is screwed, but you've got to live with what you have, and the best option for the U.S. is to peacekeep and then get peacekeepers from other nations to come in and (a) take some of the burden from the U.S.; and (b) make it a more international effort so that the Iraqi factions don't think it's a Western imperial occupation.

I'm just against that crazy war as anyone else (including the surge), but being hissy about Bush and Fox ain't got to solve things.

Zakaria is proposing a way to solve things, which may or may not work, but which is better than running out and let everyone kill one another for 20 years....

Posted by JRVJ | January 22, 2008 11:57 AM

I find it very interesting that the response here to Fareed's summary and analysis of facts on the ground is, for the most part (exceptions being, for example, the comments by gordonminor and J.B.), childish ideology. What nostalgia! It reminds of my days in SDL where facts often elicited screamed slogans, and very little analysis.

Posted by Jack Caughran | January 22, 2008 12:05 PM

My god all you liberals are really silly people.

Posted by Michael | January 22, 2008 12:11 PM

"My god all you liberals are really silly people."

that's actually a pretty good summary of the 2nd paragraph of fareed's article. my favorite 'analysis of facts' was the line, "John McCain deserves credit for supporting the surge." very serious. not silly at all.

Posted by cha cha cha | January 22, 2008 12:22 PM

The column is not as bad as one might think from Yglesias' post. The passage that Yglesias quotes is as bad as one might think from his post.

While the rest of the column gives a reasonably accurate account of the situation in Iraq, it does nothing to justify the claim that the war is over. Actually the description makes it seem like this is a lull until the war resumes. And if that is true, then the claim that the war is over would be extreme idiocy. Actual wars go through lulls as different sides decide how best to proceed.

So Yglesias is right to point to the absurdity of the claim that the war is over which presents a false picture of the situation and suggests policy responses which are not what Zakaria is actually suggesting.

And the point of it seems to be to argue that Liberals are misdescribing the situation when in fact they have been correctly describing the situation. It is hard to see what part of what follows about the situation in Iraq in Zacharia's piece would not be agreed to by most opponents of the war. (Although clearly his solution would not be agreed to).

So it does appear that Zacaria begins his article by saying something incredibly stupid for the express purpose of creating a false equation between liberals who are wrong not to accept this one nonsensical way of categorizing the situation, and conservatives who are wrong not to accept the actual situation.

Posted by Lon | January 22, 2008 12:22 PM

Mission Re-Accomplished

Posted by Phil | January 22, 2008 12:52 PM

Actually, in point of fact, the war was over years ago.

What we have isn't a war (aside from the civil war between Iraqis). In terms of what we're doing there, it's an occupation, not a war.

Posted by liberal | January 22, 2008 11:06 AM

Bingo!

Posted by empty | January 22, 2008 12:58 PM

Zakaria discovers hot water:

The most intelligent strategy for the United States now is a combined political and military one.

No kidding. A combined military and political one. Who could have thunk it. It's as if that hadn't been their strategy--their failed strategy--all along.

Posted by jcasey | January 22, 2008 1:10 PM

This is Fareed burying the lead.

Democrats are silly, and then he goes to list all the real problems that W & the repugs are glossing over.

The big story is, GOP grossly unprepared and disconnected, but Zakaria, one of the architects of this debacle, starts off blaming the dems.

The man is just a propagandist.

Posted by feckless | January 22, 2008 1:21 PM

Wow, how great would life be if you could say any damn fool thing and loyal legions would leap to defend you, explaining that that's not what you meant at all.

Well, pretty great, that's how great. And if you can figure out what rich Republicans want to hear, and consistently say that, you can have that great life. Even if you yourself don't end up wearing a bow tie and a double chin, someone will always be covering your back when you say what rich Republicans want to hear.

Let others pay the painful price of being judged by what they actually said. Being a Republican means never having to say you're sorry.

Posted by serial catowner | January 22, 2008 1:22 PM

Curious how forces that used to run the show for Saddam and until recently were the fiercest US enemy --then totally lumped in with "al qaeda" now are known as "concerned local citizens."

I agreed totally that Fareed buried the lead. He talked himself completely out of his "war is over" thesis.

Here is something more illuminating:
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/iraq/000722.php

Awoken to a New Danger
Inter Press Service - By Ali al-Fadhily and Dahr Jamail

BAGHDAD, Jan 14 (IPS) - The newly formed 'Awakening' forces set up by the U.S. military are bringing new conflict among people.

For months now the U.S. military has been actively building what it calls 'Awakening' forces and "concerned local citizens" in an effort to reduce attacks on occupation forces.

Members of the forces, which comprise primarily former resistance fighters and tribal groups, are paid 300 dollars monthly. There are at present about 80,000 recruits to these groups. The U.S. military plans to cap the number at 85,000....

Posted by Maine Owl | January 22, 2008 2:30 PM

As mentioned above - occupation, not a war. Why is this so hard to grasp? Who's the official enemy we're fighting? What government are we opposed to?

Posted by Gringo Starr | January 22, 2008 2:57 PM

Fareed's column aside, I do think it was an unnecessary cheap shot on Matt's part about the MRAP. If the first casualty in an MRAP is the exposed gunner, and it took that much explosives to destroy the vehicle while the other three crewmembers suffered less-than-life threatening injuries, than it's hard to see how that's indicative of how badly the war/occupation is going (there are plenty of other signs that tell you that).

It will always be possible to kill soldiers in the battlefield, but by dramatically raising the cost of the materials and effort needed to do so, I think the military's made the move in the right direction as far as acquiring MRAPs.

Posted by Dave | January 22, 2008 4:37 PM

The Iraq Occupation / Civil War isn't over, and we certainly haven't won. We haven't even tied, as in Korea. The Sunni forces are, pure and simple, the pre-War Iraqi army, and I suspect that they feel themselves to be the victors of this stage of the conflict, with good reason. They have fought the American forces at least to a draw, and we are now paying them protection money (to be brutally frank), while they have "their command structure, tight discipline, equipment and gear all intact." Sounds like a good position to be in after 5 years of asymmetrical warfare with the global superpower.

The Iraqis know a lot more about our internal politics than we know about theirs, and they are simply waiting now to see what happens here. If we can get up the nerve to cut our losses, I predict our forces will then leave Iraq pretty easily, as neither side would want to waste resources to get what is going to happen anyway.

Posted by Marshall | January 22, 2008 5:36 PM

I think both Matt and Fareed kind of missed the real story here. Everybody and his dog knows what the "surge" is supposed to be: it's a temporary escalation of troops, intended to give some breathing room for the politicians to get things resolved.

If there has been a reduction in violence, wouldn't the simplest explanation be that the instigators of said violence are simply riding things out? Once the surge ends, they can go back to blowing things up in relative security, and if the Americans think that things are relatively secure, it makes it that much more likely that there will be a draw-down.

If, however, the escalation clearly is becoming permanent, as Zakaria is apparently advocating then the insurgents adjust to the new reality and return to their old tricks. Violence levels go back up, and the civil war continues.

As for Zakaria, he clearly missed something else: if Sunni opposition to the United States was temporary, why on earth couldn't their alliance be temporary as well? If you were trying to "lay low", the best place to do it would be in the arms of the enemy. Once the situation changes, you can simply take all that war materiel and training and aim it right back at the Americans.

Posted by Demosthenes | January 22, 2008 5:43 PM

Don Williams: "How much oil is being pumped?"

Not much, actually - and it isn't going to get much better as long as al-Sadr's militia controls much of Basra.

And today, well, here is Kirkuk:

"Iraq halts Kirkuk oil deliveries

MENAFN - 22/01/2008

(MENAFN) An official at the Iraqi Ministry of Oil said that Iraq has halted its crude oil exports from its northern oil fields which delivers crude from the Kirkuk oil fields to Turkey's Ceyhan port, The Wall Street Jounal reported.

He pointed out that the pipeline was shut down due to a malfunction at one point in the pipeline, though no details of the fault were given.

Iraq's State Oil Marketing Organization has commenced selling Kirkuk crude oil to European and U.S. customers through term contracts from the beginning of 2008.

It is worth mentioning that sabotages on the northern export pipeline has rendered it idle for most of the time barring the last four months since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003."

Power cuts plague Iraq, hurt oil production
Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:26am EST

BAGHDAD, Jan 18 (Reuters) - Electricity cuts that blacked out Iraq's northern oilfields and main refinery this week were a timely reminder that its hopes of boosting oil production rest on something it does not have -- a dependable power supply.

Iraq has managed to sustain production of around 2.2 million barrels per day (bpd), but levels were close to 3 million bpd before the U.S.-led war on Iraq in March 2003.

While sabotage attacks have constantly interrupted the country's attempts to increase oil production, power cuts are nearly as detrimental...

Iraq has also stopped pumping crude oil from its northern Kirkuk oilfields to the Turkish port of Ceyhan after the main power station feeding the fields ran out of refined fuel.

Iraq's Oil Ministry has blamed the Electricity Ministry for failing to provide its refineries with an uninterrupted power supply. The Electricity Ministry in turn has said the Oil Ministry is not providing sufficient fuel to run its plants.

"It's a vicious circle," observed a U.S. government official, who said U.S. officials were working hard to improve cooperation between the two ministries to improve the stability and capacity of the fragile, war-damaged national power grid.

Washington has pumped $4 billion into reconstructing the national grid, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has completed more than 500 projects to improve the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity in Iraq.

Iraq needs about 9,500 megawatts a day but Iraqis receive around only 5,000 MW. A 10-year plan announced by Electricity Minister Karim Waheed envisages adding 1,000-1,500 MW, but attracting the necessary investment has not been easy.

"Add into that a volatile political situation and a lack of interest from lenders or international power companies ... and it is no surprise that the initially hot topic of the challenge of upgrading the Iraqi power system very quickly fell away through almost complete lack of interest," Wardlaw said.

And trying to keep the lights switched on in Iraq today is a dangerous business. Last August, minister Waheed estimated that 1,100 ministry employees had been killed, kidnapped or wounded."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 22, 2008 8:20 PM

"t will always be possible to kill soldiers in the battlefield, but by dramatically raising the cost of the materials and effort needed to do so, I think the military's made the move in the right direction as far as acquiring MRAPs."

Oh, bullshit. What's a "dramatic cost" in the cost of preparing explosives in Iraq? They have literally a million tons of explosives available to the insurgents. They can up the ante to an unlimited degree. How many billions did it cost to get the MRAPs designed, built and shipped to Iraq? You want to try to win that game?

It's ridiculous.

There is no such thing as an armored vehicle that can't be destroyed - AND kill its occupants - with a little thought.

Under conventional warfare, you protect armor with infantry, so nobody can get close enough to destroy one. In an urban environment with IEDs, this isn't even possible.

MRAPS are a joke - they'll be destroyed regularly very soon. It took the Iraqi insurgency some time to figure out how to knock out Abrams tanks - but they did it eventually. MRAPS are no different.

Christ, here's an article from back in MAY of LAST YEAR on this:

Thursday, May 31, 2007
MRAPs Lose to Arms Race
http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/2007/05/mraps-lose-to-arms-race.html

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 22, 2008 8:30 PM

Here's the reality:

US MILITARY BREAKS RANKS, Part 1
A salvo at the White House
By Mark Perry
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA23Ak02.html

Money quotes:

"Don't let the quiet fool you," a senior defense official says. "There's still a huge chasm between how the White House views Iraq and how we [in the Pentagon] view Iraq. The White House would like to have you believe the 'surge' has worked, that we somehow defeated the insurgency. That's just ludicrous. There's increasing quiet in Iraq, but that's happened because of our shift in strategy - the 'surge' had nothing to do with it."

Moreover, these officers contend, the insurgency might not have put down roots in the country after the fall of Baghdad if it had not been for the White House and State Department - which undermined military efforts to strike deals with a number of Iraq's most disaffected tribal leaders. These officers point out that the first contact between high-level Pentagon officials and the nascent insurgency took place in Amman, Jordan, in August of 2003 - but senior Bush administration officials killed the talks.

As a senior Pentagon official now relates: "The Sunni leader literally picked up the telephone one day and called the ranking colonel at the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF)and pleaded with him, 'I need help and I need it now. Al-Qaeda is killing my tribe'." The marine colonel in question was John Coleman, the chief of staff to the same unit that had gone into Fallujah to fight the insurgency after the killing of four US security contractors in April of 2004.

"Rice was just enraged with Coleman and with the marines," a senior Pentagon officials say. "She said, 'you have to stop all of that right now and you can't do it unless you have State Department permission and the permission of the Iraqi government'. Well, the marines weren't about to do that. They were taking a lot of casualties and they were fed up. And they just concluded that it was their war and not hers," a senior Pentagon civilian recently noted. "So they just ignored her and went ahead anyway."

Conway protested to Sanchez that going into Fallujah "with guns blazing" was the worst thing his marines could do, but Sanchez would hear none of it. "I have my orders, and now you have yours," Sanchez pointedly said.

But for the Americans, the new alliance came with a price. During September of 2007 alone, US military officers dispensed well over US$200,000 to Babil's tribal leaders, including $370 for each provincial policeman hired by Babil's Janabi tribe, a potent and influential force in southern and western Iraq.

The payments were and are a source of unease for American military officers, who fought the Janabis for two years in the province - and who lost American soldiers in attacks led by Janabi insurgents. "They used to want to kill me, now they want to sign a contract with me," a senior officer of the 501st told the Times of London. "It's hard to get your head around, but it is working."

A senior Iraqi observer with ties to the tribal network confirms this view: "The Janabis in the south have strong links to those in the north, tribal links, but you should know some are motivated by sectarian concerns and some are simply extremists." The question remains, of course: what happens when the American money dries up? "The answer to that question is simple," this Iraqi says. And then he laughs: "When the money goes, they go."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 22, 2008 8:37 PM

How depressing, I like Zakaria a lot.

Posted by aleks | January 23, 2008 7:21 AM