Center for a New American Security

Lots of stuff on the U.S. pullout from Iraqi cities today.  The reactions of Iraqis serve as a sobering reminder to us Americans that Iraqis see things quite a bit differently than we have.

Nevertheless,  the New York Times, Jawad al-Bolani, and others (Prof. Bacevich being the reliable exception) agree that there is a lot of work left to do, and that most of it will have to be done by Iraqis with a little help from us when necessary.

UPDATE: For those who haven't seen it already, here's General Odierno's letter to the troops explaining the transition that occurred today.

One of our regular blog readers requested some discussion of the recent spate of bombings in Iraq and the implications for the U.S. pullout from Iraqi cities set for June 30 (this Tuesday--mark it on your calendar).  This wave of attacks has prompted a good amount of hand-wringing about the coming “unraveling” of the country.  Here’s my two-cent analysis.

Obviously we don't want to underestimate how dangerous and violent Iraq is.  Even with the dramatic improvements in security over the past two years, it's not exactly a choice vacation destination and probably won't be for the foreseeable future.  From the remnants of AQI to the underground members of the JAM and “special groups,” there’s no shortage of bad guys out there who would like to undermine the Iraqi government.  With U.S. forces pulling back, they have some opportunity to reemerge, probe the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces, and spark a new round of communal strife.

So it’s not like the current series of bombings is unexpected.  Certainly it’s not a good thing, but it’s also important not to overreact:

Despite all these bombings, we have yet to see signs that the death spiral of sectarian retaliation has returned or is about to return.  This is a point that General Odierno has made with some regularity.  The attacks in and of themselves are terrible, but not necessarily strategically significant unless they trigger waves of reprisals that Iraqi forces cannot control.  If there are signs of this occurring, it doesn’t seem like they’re being noticed.  Instead we get statements from al-Sadr after the recent attacks calling for restraint.  Obviously we can’t take that restraint for granted, but that still seems qualitatively better than the days of 2006.

In any case, even if we’re concerned about some degradation of security, what are we supposed to do?  A number of folks, including Stephen Biddle, have counseled slowing the pace of withdrawal, but to exactly what end?  Iraq’s forces may not be the best in the world and Maliki may be overconfident, but it seems to me that what the Iraqis need is more assistance in resolving some underlying conflicts that can drive violence (Sunni integration into government, Kurdish territorial and oil disputes) and developing the governmental and economic institutions necessary to sustain the state.  It’s not clear to me that continuing our troop presence in Iraq at its current level and disposition is still required to advance those goals.

Of course, I could be completely wrong.  But if Iraq is about to go off the rails, I will predict that it will not be because of the Sunni-Shi’ite divide that still gets a lot of the U.S. media focus.  It will either be a flaring-up of the simmering Kurdish-Arab conflict, or something else we haven’t thought of yet.

Coming at the issue of journalism, propaganda, and war/insurgencies from a slightly different angle, this clip from the archives of ABC News is currently being passed around among the Vietnam veterans community.

It is the ABC evening news, hosted at that time by Howard K. Smith (who first came to fame for reporting on WWII with Edward R. Murrow, and whose son fought at LZ Albany  in November ‘65) and Harry Reasoner. The date is 28 April 1972. To put that in perspective, this is after the U.S. pulled out ground troops from the Republic of Vietnam. The North Vietnamese had just started what is now called (in the US anyway) the “Easter Offensive,” an almost completely conventional cross-border assault. The U.S. is responding solely, if overwhelmingly, with airpower. The South Vietnamese are doing the fighting on the ground. A little more than two weeks after this report John Paul Vann will take over de facto control from Vietnamese LTG Dzu and personally orchestrate American airpower in the defense of Kontum, effectively crushing the NVA attack and saving the RVN. Forty-one days later he himself will be killed in a helicopter crash. The offensive was defeated.

The issue for consideration is the fact that this link/clip is being passed around by U.S. Vietnam veterans as an example of American anti-military media bias during the war. In other words, traitorous propaganda on behalf of the North Vietnamese enemy. Take a look, see if you see the same thing.    

Hello all. The landlord asked me to enter real subtle-like. So I am doing my best to comply. Bear with my reticence. ~ Denominator

Now look, I’ve served in the 1^st Cav. I’ve even served in the 3^rd Brigade (highlighted in this story). I wear my Stetson at the least provocation, and defy anyone who contends that the huge frackin’ patch doesn’t matter. That being said, I must cede that my old Division does have the ability to produce moronic decisions upon occasion. In this case, they are going all Old School on the media. But it’s not like that darned liberal-dolschtoss-out-to-getcha media. No, in this case the 1^st Cav has taken the all-American decision to ban a reporter from the flippin’ STARS AND STRIPES.

You go there boys. Point that M-249 straight at your leather personnel carriers and pop off a full box?

Let me check something here…You do know that the Stars and Stripes is, according to the Department of Defense is, well, I’ll let them point it out: “Stars and Stripes is a daily newspaper published for the U.S. military, DoD civilians, contractors, and their families." But perhaps you missed that next line that Congress authorized. You remember Congress, right?  "Unique among the many military publications, Stars and Stripes operates as a First Amendment newspaper, free of control and censorship. We have published continuously in Europe since 1942, and since 1945 in the Pacific. Today, our readers number well over 350,000.” In other words, still theirs, look at it this way, “Stars and Stripes is a Department of Defense-authorized daily newspaper distributed overseas for the U.S. military community.” What part of that did you not understandimipate?

You banned a reporter from the Stars and Stripes for Anti-American reporting? Seriously? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Clue for you: You, the officers who did this, just are not that important. As both Bill Cosby and my own old man told me, upon misbehavior, “I brought you into this world, I’ll take you right back out. Doesn’t matter to me. I’ll make a ‘nuther one jest like ya.” The Army is like that. What were you thinking? You just set yourselves up for the biggest kneecapping since the Sopranos went off the air.

What really blows my mind is that I know for a fact that Major General Dan Bolger knows better than this. I’ve read his writing for 15 years, and watched the man go out on patrols, as a G.O. mind you. He understands. (See update: 3rd Bde/1CD is under 25ID) He understands that:  A. The Press is not the enemy. B. You cannot control the press. C. Trying to control the press only results in bad press, which damages the war effort. D.  Giving the press access always results in better stories. So right now you who made this decision are betting on one thing: That Bolger will automatically support you, despite the fact that you just made one of the most egregiously misguided “decisions” in the whole eight years of this war. Nice one. Buy yourselves a round at the O-Club when you get back to Hood.

Personally, I’m thinking, you Battalion and Brigade Public Affairs officers responsible for this are using some of the prohibited local products in your decision making on this count, and you’ve been supported by the probable fact that the Division PAO did not fully inform the Division Commander of the lowdown. Now that it’s out there in the open, I fully expect that Bolger will quietly, in his subtle way, come to you and casually explain things. Cause, like, he’s a real subtle guy. (Mooted by update)

And I model for Men’s Health.

UPDATE: An alert reader who saw this before suggested, and I checked, and the fact is that once again the 3rd Brigade, 1st CAV is under the control of 25 ID/MND-N. That takes Bolger out of the equation. 25 ID is commanded by MG Robert L. Caslen.

Many thanks to the reader who saw this YouTube clip of David Kilcullen speaking to the nerds at Google. I always learn something when I listen to or speak with Dave -- even when conversation drifts to Scotch or Jermyn Street shirtmakers.

Man, we are catching it from all sides today!

My colleague Kristin Lord has been asking around, trying to find out who is in charge of our communications efforts in Afghanistan. The answer, apparently, is you. Abu Muqawama readers are hereby invited to participate in the "Why Afghanistan Matters" video contest. The snarkiest entries will be posted here.

We last saw the BBC's John Sweeney when he was baiting Scientologists in California, but Londonstani went through hazardous environment training with him a year or so back, and sure enough, here he is reporting (well) from the Swat Valley. And here he is talking about reporting from such an environment.

Hookers 5-0 Egypt:

JOHANNESBURG — In news that, if true, will bring relief to World Cup organizers and embarrassment to the Egyptian soccer team, three South African newspapers reported Sunday that Egypt’s players apparently did not lose their money to robbers but to prostitutes after an historic 1-0 victory over Italy at the Confederations Cup. The accusations were quickly denied by the head of the Egyptian soccer federation. “I think that they said that to divert attention from the main issue, which is security, by creating a scandal for the Egyptian team,” Samir Zahir, the chairman of the Egyptian federation, told The Sunday Independent newspaper. Security has been the hot-button top in the run-up to the 2010 World Cup. The South African police said Friday that Egypt had reported that five team members had their wallets lifted. The amount reportedly was $2,400. The burglary was said to have been discovered after the Egyptian players returned to their hotel rooms following Thursday’s victory over Italy.

First off, let me praise those bloggers -- Andrew Sullivan, Nico Pitney, Robert Mackey -- who have used Twitter feeds from Iran to tirelessly live-blog the uprising in Tehran. But all the same, I am happy that articles and analysis are now popping up that question the actual usefulness of Twitter as a tool of the revolution. Because it seems apparent that while Twitter has been useful in getting news out of Iran, it has been the more old-school techniques -- like, you know, word of mouth -- that have really been the driving forces behind organizing the protests that have shaken the mullahs.

The New York Times puts things in perspective in today's paper:

Skeptics note that only a small number of people used Twitter to organize protests in Iran and that other means — individual text messaging, old-fashioned word of mouth and Farsi-language Web sites — were more influential. But Twitter did prove to be a crucial tool in the cat-and-mouse game between the opposition and the government over enlisting world opinion.

More nuance arrives in today's Washington Post:

First, Twitter's own internal architecture puts limits on political activism. There are so many messages streaming through at any moment that any single entry is unlikely to break through the din, and the limit of 140 characters -- part of the service's charm and the secret of its success -- militates against sustained argument and nuance. (Yes, "Give me liberty or give me death" totals just 32 characters, but Patrick Henry's full speech exceeded 1,200 words.) What's most exciting is the aggregate effect of all this speech and what it reveals about the zeitgeist of the moment, but it still reflects a worldwide user population that skews wealthy, English-speaking and well-educated. The same is true of the blogosphere and social networks such as Facebook.

Second, governments that are jealous of their power can push back on cyberspace when they feel threatened. The Iranian state runs one of the world's most formidable online censorship regimes. In the past week alone, officials have blocked access to YouTube, Facebook and the majority of Web sites most often cited by reformist segments of the Persian blogosphere. They supplement this censorship with surveillance and the threat of imprisonment for those who speak out. Even if they fail to block political speech or organizing activities, the possibility of future retaliation can chill the most devoted activists and critics.

Paradoxically, the "freedom to scream" online may actually assist authoritarian regimes by serving as a political release valve of sorts. If dissent is channeled into cyberspace, it can keep protesters off the streets and help state security forces track political activism and new online voices. As Egyptian democracy activist Saad Ibrahim said last week during a discussion at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington, this appears to be part of a long tradition for governments in the Middle East, especially in Egypt, where dissent is channeled into universities and allowed to thrive there, as long as it does not escape the university walls.

Third, the blogosphere is not limited to young, liberal, anti-regime activists; state sympathizers are increasingly active in the battle for online supremacy. Our research into the Iranian blogosphere shows that political and religious conservatives are no less prominent than regime critics. While the Iranian blogosphere is indeed a place where women speak out for their rights, young people criticize the morality police, journalists fight censorship, reformists press for change, and dissidents call for revolution, it is also a place where the supreme leader is praised, the Holocaust denied, the Islamic Revolution defended and Hezbollah celebrated. It is also a place where Islamist student groups mobilize and pro-establishment leaders, including President Ahmadinejad, reach out to their constituents within the Iranian public. Our most recent research suggests that the number and popularity of politically conservative and Islamic bloggers has grown over the past year, relative to the number of secular reformists, possibly due to the events leading up to the presidential election.

So let's not go all Twitter crazy just yet. Oh, and Evgeny Morozov went off on Foreign Policy's net.effect blog. Worth reading.

And huge kudos to all the media -- mainstream and new -- who have kept their mouths shut about this for the past several months.

David Rohde, a New York Times reporter who was kidnapped by the Taliban, escaped Friday night and made his way to freedom after more than seven months of captivity in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Mr. Rohde, along with a local reporter, Tahir Ludin, and their driver, Asadullah Mangal, was abducted outside Kabul, Afghanistan, on Nov. 10 while he was researching a book.

Mr. Rohde was part of The Times’s reporting team that won a Pulitzer Prize this spring for coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan last year. Mr. Rohde told his wife, Kristen Mulvihill, that Mr. Ludin joined him in climbing over the wall of a compound where they were being held in the North Waziristan region of Pakistan. They made their way to a nearby Pakistani Frontier Corps base and on Saturday they were flown to the American military base in Bagram, Afghanistan.

“They just walked over the wall of the compound,” Ms. Mulvihill said. The driver, Mr. Mangal, did not escape with the other two men.

The initial report was that Mr. Rohde was in good health, while Mr. Ludin injured his foot in the escape.

Until now, the kidnapping has been kept quiet by The Times and other media organizations out of concern for the men’s safety.

We join the Times and others in wishing David a hearty welcome home. It's going to be quite the book.

I am not a big fan of politically-motivated translation services, but this MEMRI clip of Ahmadinejad getting grilled by Max Rodenbeck (The Economist) and a visibly sober Robert Fisk (The Independent) is well worth watching. Rodenbeck, in particular, lets Ahmadinejad have it. And Ahmadinejad, playing his part, is reliably creepy.

[h/t The Arabist]