The NIE - unfiltered Posted by: mcq
on Friday, August 24, 2007
Tired of trying to figure out what the NIE says through media filters? No problem. Here are the four pages of "Key Judgements" unfiltered (all emphasis in the original:
Key Judgments
There have been measurable but uneven improvements in Iraq’s security situation since our last National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in January 2007. The steep escalation of rates of violence has been checked for now, and overall attack levels across Iraq have fallen during seven of the last nine weeks. Coalition forces, working with Iraqi forces, tribal elements, and some Sunni insurgents, have reduced al-Qa’ida in Iraq’s (AQI)capabilities, restricted its freedom of movement, and denied it grassroots support in some areas. However, the level of overall violence, including attacks on and casualties among civilians, remains high; Iraq’s sectarian groups remain unreconciled; AQI retains the ability to conduct high-profile attacks; and to date, Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively. There have been modest improvements in economic output, budget execution, and government finances but fundamental structural problems continue to prevent sustained progress in economic growth and living conditions.
We assess, to the extent that Coalition forces continue to conduct robust counterinsurgency operations and mentor and support the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), that Iraq’s security will continue to improve modestly during the next six to 12 months but that levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high and the Iraqi Government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation and improved governance. Broadly accepted political compromises required for sustained security, long-term political progress, and economic development are unlikely to emerge unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political and security developments.
Political and security trajectories in Iraq continue to be driven primarily by Shia insecurity about retaining political dominance, widespread Sunni unwillingness to accept a diminished political status, factional rivalries within the sectarian communities resulting in armed conflict, and the actions of extremists such as AQI and elements of the Sadrist Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM) militia that try to fuel sectarian violence. Two new drivers have emerged since the January Estimate: expanded Sunni opposition to AQI and Iraqi expectation of a Coalition drawdown. Perceptions that the Coalition is withdrawing probably will encourage factions anticipating a power vacuum to seek local security solutions that could intensify sectarian violence and intra-sectarian competition. At the same time, fearing a Coalition withdrawal, some tribal elements and Sunni groups probably will continue to seek accommodation with the Coalition to strengthen themselves for a post-Coalition security environment.
• Sunni Arab resistance to AQI has expanded in the last six to nine months but has not yet translated into broad Sunni Arab support for the Iraqi Government or widespread willingness to work with the Shia. The Iraqi Government’s Shia leaders fear these groups will ultimately side with armed opponents of the government, but the Iraqi Government has supported some initiatives to incorporate those rejecting AQI into Interior Ministry and Defense Ministry elements.
Page 2:
• Intra-Shia conflict involving factions competing for power and resources probably will intensify as Iraqis assume control of provincial security. In Basrah, violence has escalated with the drawdown of Coalition forces there. Local militias show few signs of reducing their competition for control of valuable oil resources and territory.
• The Sunni Arab community remains politically fragmented, and we see no prospective leaders that might engage in meaningful dialogue and deliver on national agreements.
• Kurdish leaders remain focused on protecting the autonomy of the Kurdish region and reluctant to compromise on key issues.
The IC assesses that the emergence of “bottom-up” security initiatives, principally among Sunni Arabs and focused on combating AQI, represent the best prospect for improved security over the next six to 12 months, but we judge these initiatives will only translate into widespread political accommodation and enduring stability if the Iraqi Government accepts and supports them. A multi-stage process involving the Iraqi Government providing support and legitimacy for such initiatives could foster over the longer term political reconciliation between the participating Sunni Arabs and the national government. We also assess that under some conditions “bottom-up initiatives” could pose risks to the Iraqi Government.
• We judge such initiatives are most likely to succeed in predominantly Sunni Arab areas, where the presence of AQI elements has been significant, tribal networks and identities are strong, the local government is weak, sectarian conflict is low, and the ISF tolerate Sunni initiatives, as illustrated by Al Anbar Province.
• Sunni Arab resistance to AQI has expanded, and neighborhood security groups, occasionally consisting of mixed Shia-Sunni units, have proliferated in the past several months. These trends, combined with increased Coalition operations, have eroded AQI’s operational presence and capabilities in some areas.
• Such initiatives, if not fully exploited by the Iraqi Government, could over time also shift greater power to the regions, undermine efforts to impose central authority, and reinvigorate armed opposition to the Baghdad government.
• Coalition military operations focused on improving population security, both in and outside of Baghdad, will remain critical to the success of local and regional efforts until sectarian fears are diminished enough to enable the Shia-led Iraqi Government to fully support the efforts of local Sunni groups.
Iraqi Security Forces involved in combined operations with Coalition forces have performed adequately, and some units have demonstrated increasing professional competence. However, we judge that the ISF have not improved enough to conduct major operations independent of the Coalition on a sustained basis in multiple locations and that the ISF remain reliant on the Coalition for important aspects of logistics and combat support.
Page 3:
• The deployment of ISF units from throughout Iraq to Baghdad in support of security operations known as Operation Fardh al-Qanun marks significant progress since last year when large groups of soldiers deserted rather than depart their home areas, but Coalition and Iraqi Government support remains critical.
• Recently, the Iraqi military planned and conducted two joint Army and police large-scale security operations in Baghdad, demonstrating an improving capacity for operational command and control.
• Militia and insurgent influences continue to undermine the reliability of some ISF units, and political interference in security operations continues to undermine Coalition and ISF efforts.
• The Maliki government is implementing plans to expand the Iraqi Army and to increase its overall personnel strength to address critical gaps, but we judge that significant security gains from those programs will take at least six to 12 months, and probably longer, to materialize.
The IC assesses that the Iraqi Government will become more precarious over the next six to 12 months because of criticism by other members of the major Shia coalition (the Unified Iraqi Alliance, UIA), Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and other Sunni and Kurdish parties. Divisions between Maliki and the Sadrists have increased, and Shia factions have explored alternative coalitions aimed at constraining Maliki.
• The strains of the security situation and absence of key leaders have stalled internal political debates, slowed national decision making, and increased Maliki’s vulnerability to alternative coalitions.
• We judge that Maliki will continue to benefit from recognition among Shia leaders that searching for a replacement could paralyze the government.
Population displacement resulting from sectarian violence continues, imposing burdens on provincial governments and some neighboring states and increasing the danger of destabilizing influences spreading across Iraq’s borders over the next six to 12 months. The polarization of communities is most evident in Baghdad, where the Shia are a clear majority in more than half of all neighborhoods and Sunni areas have become surrounded by predominately Shia districts. Where population displacements have led to significant sectarian separation, conflict levels have diminished to some extent because warring communities find it more difficult to penetrate communal enclaves.
The IC assesses that Iraq’s neighbors will continue to focus on improving their leverage in Iraq in anticipation of a Coalition drawdown. Assistance to armed groups, especially from Iran, exacerbates the violence inside Iraq, and the reluctance of the Sunni states that are generally supportive of US regional goals to offer support to the Iraqi Government probably bolsters Iraqi Sunni Arabs’ rejection of the government’s legitimacy.
Page 4:
• Over the next year Tehran, concerned about a Sunni reemergence in Iraq and US efforts to limit Iranian influence, will continue to provide funding, weaponry, and training to Iraqi Shia militants. Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants, particularly the JAM, since at least the beginning of 2006. Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically.
• Syria has cracked down on some Sunni extremist groups attempting to infiltrate fighters into Iraq through Syria because of threats they pose to Syrian stability, but the IC now assesses that Damascus is providing support to non-AQI groups inside Iraq in a bid to increase Syrian influence.
• Turkey probably would use a range of measures to protect what it perceives as its interests in Iraq. The risk of cross-border operations against the People’s Congress of Kurdistan (KG) terrorist group based in northern Iraq remains.
We assess that changing the mission of Coalition forces from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization role to a primary combat support role for Iraqi forces and counterterrorist operations to prevent AQI from establishing a safehaven would erode security gains achieved thus far. The impact of a change in mission on Iraq’s political and security environment and throughout the region probably would vary in intensity and suddenness of onset in relation to the rate and scale of a Coalition redeployment. Developments within the Iraqi communities themselves will be decisive in determining political and security trajectories.
• Recent security improvements in Iraq, including success against AQI, have depended significantly on the close synchronization of conventional counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations. A change of mission that interrupts that synchronization would place security improvements at risk.
I found no real surprises in the "Key Judgements". It notes the bottom-up reconciliation, says most desired results, at least militarily and pertaining to security, are 6 to 12 months away, says the government to this point is still non-functional (again, the Surge's purpose is to provide enough security to remedy this) and finally, that Iraq's neighbors aren't particularly good neighbors. It also points out any redeployment of CF now would erode the recent progress noted.
In my opinion, you've just read the gist of the report that Congress will hear from Petraeus and Crocker in mid-September.
Go read Kevin Drum’s post on the Brookings data, 06 vs. 07. He’s caught up to me. The heck with political progress, the real question is: how much military progress has there really been, and whatever the fraction is, what is its military significance in estimating or predicting future military success?
Not much, says the data. Unless the data is wrong. Someone informed told me just last night that the percentage of attacks in Anbar attributable to ISI is 50%, not 5%. I have no way of knowing for sure except by comparison and contrast of public information.
The heck with political progress, the real question is: how much military progress has there really been, and whatever the fraction is, what is its military significance in estimating or predicting future military success?
Phase II of the surge is less than 90 days old and as the NIE points out "We assess, to the extent that Coalition forces continue to conduct robust counterinsurgency operations and mentor and support the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), that Iraq’s security will continue to improve modestly during the next six to 12 months but that levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high."
No surprise. The north of Iraq is mostly peaceful. Anbar is now mostly peaceful. East of Baghdad (Baquba) is much more peaceful. Other than the British zone in Basra, most of the South is more peaceful.
Most likely now, more than 80% of the violence in Iraq is happening in and around Baghdad (in fact it may be up to 90 to 95%) and we have active and continuing operations there and still haven’t taken on all of Sadr city.
The operations begun by the Surge will most likely continue until about April of next year. So have a little patience will you? Obviously people who’ve been in Iraq in both ’06 and ’07 see enough of a change (which may or not be captured by specific numbers) that they feel giving it more time to be a prudent step ... and that includes a lot of Democrats.
Obviously people who’ve been in Iraq in both ’06 and ’07 see enough of a change (which may or not be captured by specific numbers)
I don’t doubt that some people in Anbar have switched sides. But you’re way past that here.
There’s no way a large decline in overall violence could not be captured by specific numbers, unless the numbers were worthless, and that doesn’t square with the way their data has matched the narrative for the past three years. This is the only time since the initial fairy tales of 2003- 2004 that the narrative and the data have diverged. The only thing that speculatively comes to mind is to imagine that violence went up in Baghdad at an equal rate to the decline everywhere else. That seems unlikely. Otherwise, there just has not been a decline in overall violence. Or else the numbers are wrong. Not "not capturing", but inaccurate.
If there has not been a decline in overall violence, in my opinion, whatever perceived military success has occurred is strategically insignificant. It’s just more whack-a-mole.
If there’s some specific way in which such a decline could "not be captured", feel free to explain. Something like, "ok, just as many people are being killed, but there’s a lot of success anyway."? Or some factor that makes DOD’s numbers wrong?
It’s a lot more logical to believe that the specific people being chosen by DoD and the White House to get quotes from in Iraq are people whose tactical environments have seen progress, and that this represents a subset whose size is not nationally significant.
I believe that it’s possible that the surge could have produced a limited and temporary drop in violence. (I think it’s impossible that the surge could return Iraq to "normal", but that’s not the issue at hand). If the White House and military’s own data matched what they were saying, I would be skeptical, but not disbelieving. But if you ask me, "who do you believe, the numbers or the spokesmen", there’s no way to believe it. It’s comparable to Larry Kudlow saying, "the economy is fine!" while the mortgage numbers go in the tank. I ask "what explains this?", and they say, "**pay no attention to that**". People can always be dishonest, manipulative or simply misinformed. Numbers may not be the whole story, but it’s foolish to believe a story that runs exactly opposite to them. Either the numbers or the people telling the stories have to be flat-out wrong.
Don’t try to suggest to me to give the surge more time. I was deliberately not even getting into "so what should we do?", because you’re about three or four separate arguments away from changing my mind on that, even if the surge was meeting the suggested level of "modest success". I’m just trying to figure out if the "modest success" is even real in any factual sense. I have not answered that question.
Never mind.
that they feel giving it more time to be a prudent step ... and that includes a lot of Democrats.
I thought those Democrats were, to paraphrase you, politically expedient suckers who would call their own mothers prostitutes if they felt the wind shifting? So, if you’re right, why should I care about their opinions?
There’s no way a large decline in overall violence could not be captured by specific numbers, unless the numbers were worthless, and that doesn’t square with the way their data has matched the narrative for the past three years.
At this point, with the bottom-up reconciliation going on, a large decline in overall violence isn’t the only indicator of success.