Charts Lie in General Petraeus's Report

[awaysidetraveler]

Source: Multi-National Force Iraq. Charts to accompany the testimony of Gen. D.H. Petraeus 8-9 April, 2008

Senate Armed Services Committee

A map showing a decline in activity in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq by Al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents was among
the charts Gen. David Petraeus presented to the Senate committee Tuesday.



Read more: http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/apr/petraeus_as_charts.pdf

---

So I was perusing General Petraeus’s latest report to the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committee,
when I came across this little chart. At first I looked at it and said to myself, “Well gee, it looks like things
aren’t quite as bad in Iraq as the media is portraying. Provincial Iraqi control is gaining across Iraq."



Then I noticed Basra, and I remembered the videos of the battle of Basra, the Shiite on Shiite civil war there....
As I recall, the government of President Nouri al-Maliki failed to secure Basra, and the oil smuggling between Basra
and Iran continues to sap the al-Maliki government's treasury of necessary oil revenues.

If this isn't an illustrated and out-and-out lie by General Petraeus, then it begs the question:
What about Basra qualifies it as being under provincial Iraqi control?

Is it the Iranian intervention, Sadr's Mehdi army moving the smuggled oil, or is it the out-and-out civil war
against the al-Maliki government that qualify Basra for this distinction?

[YDogg]

1. Thanks for pointing this out.

[awaysidetraveler]

4. No problem.

I'd love to see a video of either Clinton or Obama grilling Petraeus on this one.

[gateley]

2. Didn't matter to the SFRC -- they knew it was bullshit before

Patreaus and Crocker walked in the door.

[awaysidetraveler]

3. True, but it's such a bold illustration of FUBAR that surely the SFRC should call them on it.

It's such an obvious lie... surely someone should call them on it.

No?

[gateley]

5. Well the SFRC didn't

specifically point to the chart and say "this is wrong". It generally just told Patraeus and Crocker that THEY were wrong. I was happy with that -- especially after the abysmal showing of the morning's SAFC hearing.

[Igel]

6. I don't have a problem.

1. Basra is nominally at least under Iraqi army control. With the unilateral ceasefire, the Iraqi army set up check points even in the center of Basra. But this is a trivial side issue.

2. The territory listed as "Basra" on the map and the city of Basra aren't coterminous: Much more is in the territory than just the town. Given the lack of fine-grained detail, the small area that is the town proper, as well as Umm al-Qasr, simply don't show up.

3. The territory doesn't have to be controlled by the Iraqi army for it to be under their jurisdiction. "Control" here is a funny word: Note that even some places listed as "partially ready" aren't under US/coalition control, except in theory. There are only two agents listed: Iraqi Army and, by implication, US/Coalition. No "Kurdish", no "Sadrist", no "insurgent" area. Responsibility for Basra province, if I construe the map as probably intended, was turned over to the Iraqis from the British (or "coalition") in or before 3/08. Why the quickie "civil war" in Basra town should mean the territory reverts to US/coalition control, can't say. Seems like an iffy proposition to me.

I do find Ta'min's status interesting, however.

I'm free to interpret the map differently, but I really would have to be clear that it's my interpretation, not necessarily what the map's producer intended.

[awaysidetraveler]

7. Truly, this is an interesting reply. However, the term "Provincial Iraqi Control" is specific.

1) The legal term "Provincial Iraqi Control" refers to the authority of the Iraq national government as well as the provincial government. Basra is not controlled by Iraq's national government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq:_Transition_to_Provincial_Iraqi_Control

2) Token checkpoints aside, the territorial control of the Mahdi Army within the Basra Province must at least surround the oil fields and connect with Iran, otherwise the important business of the flow of contraband oil could not continue.

3) According to your definition, the word "control" doesn't mean the word "control"? That's exactly the kind of logic Petraeus would have us believe, and there is no legal basis for your assertion. You are right to state that the "control" of other provinces is theoretical, but you don't go far enough: it is likely that the entire map is a fictional enterprise. Any way you read the map, the truth remains that that Basra is not under the control of either the Iraqi Army or the national government; and these few token checkpoints will not change the fact that the oil and the money are still flowing away through Iran.

I am in no way suggesting that this Shiite-Shiite civil war should engage American troops in any way. I am only stating that this map is yet another badly drawn lie that is being used to defend a badly drawn out war.

Thanks for posting such an interesting reply, though. Also, why do you find Ta'min's status interesting?

[awaysidetraveler]

8. A map and notes on Tamim's status, including prospects for regional peace following US withdrawl

The civil war between the Kurdish Autonomous Region and regional Arabic forces clearly puts those regions firmly out of the control of either the national government or the Kurds.

Of course, it's all about the oil. Here's a fine article on that topic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200705/kurdish-iraq

The document doesn't illustrate the pipelines leaving Iraq, either through Turkey or Syria. However, General Petraeus's report does show maps indicating that the pipelines are the main areas of the regional battles.

The Kurds can't get that oil out of Iraq without either making peace with Turkey, or with Syria and the Arabs guarding the pipeline out of Iraq.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2552

All things considered, Turkey appears to be the likeliest economic partner for the Kurds in Iraq. For though they stand a small chance of surrounding and securing the oilfields and pipelines leaving through the north, they stand no chance of securing the pipelines that run through to Syria.

Undoubtedly Iran either has or will become a player there as well, but the small-scale smuggling of oil through Iran will not provide enough money to build a Kurdish nation.

So again you're right: the provinces in the north also are not under the control of the al-Maliki government; the provinces in the north are either under the control of Kurdish forces or regional Arabic forces that hope to control the oil and send it out through Syria.

That "rainbow coalition" of forces including the Sunni Arabs also hope to end the day with a nation-building chunk of oil they can send out through Syria.

It appears to me that neither the Kurds or the Arabs can win the battles to control all of the oil within the region, which is why the civil war raged so continually between the Kurds and the Arabs under Hussein. Both sides are armed to the teeth, and the prospect of billions in oil promises new funding for arms, which can easily be funnelled across such porous desert borders.

It is therefore likely that the regional peace will eventually develop by dividing the province of Ta'min.



A possible plan for the arrangement of that peace could include the division of Ta'min by way of the oil fields themselves. The Kurds would control the oil fields to the north of Kirkuk and the city itself, including the city of Erbil and the Turkish pipeline. The "rainbow" Sunni state would control Hawja and the oil field directly to the north of it, as well as the Tikrit and the Diyala oil fields. A deal could be brokered to include rights to pipe the oil out of Syria, and then both the Sunnis and the Kurds could finance their governments.

This deal could also be brokered instead of the civil war that will arise out of the current circumstance. The Sunni Arabs gain by brokering just such a deal, because otherwise they stand to be left out in the sand with no resources to build a non-Shiite state with; the Kurds gain a nation and the ability to move the oil their land sits upon.

It is high time that such plans for peace be developed, lest they be replaced by the war plans of the adventurers who wait only for the U.S. to leave Iraq.