Baghdad: City Of Walls

[ivan_the_terrible]

A short film/report (for ITV I think) from the journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad. Interesting to see an Iraqi perspective on the conflict.

Quite informative too. I wasn't aware that its mainly the walls that are causing the casualties to drop recently. Certainly not saying that the walls aren't effective short term, but hardly a practical long-term measure IMO...

[Lunar4]

i agree with ya ivan!

[Francebunkerer]

Well if this is true, it further supports my skepticism of the surge.
From my knowledge, I wouldn't doubt the points in this video.

[GeneralLee]

Well if this is true, it further supports my skepticism of the surge.
From my knowledge, I wouldn't doubt the points in this video.

But not every were in Iraq is surrounded by walls, only in Baghdad. The casualties have dropped across the country.

[Francebunkerer]

True, not every city has walls.
But there's something else to it. Outside of Baghdad several clan leaders (is there a more local word?) have chosen a different course.


I'll look for a source.
I believe there was something in the NZZ.

[Tiwaz]

But not every were in Iraq is surrounded by walls, only in Baghdad. The casualties have dropped across the country.

Perhaps there just isn't targets to kill?

They have had what... Good 4 years or so to pull out ethnic cleansing in other cities?

Would be surprising if situation did not settle down once those stupid enough to live outside their enclaves are dead and rest are fortifying their homes for long term war.

[Jacob Debroedere]

This reminds me of a fortified church near the village I live; it was built somewhere in the 1200's as a place where the villagers could hide when bandits or raiders attacked the town.

I don't think it's a good sign when people decide they need walls around their homes for protection. That's just treating the symptoms, not the disease(but I would do the same if I would live in Baghdad).

[danzig]

Pretty narrow view by the film since it seems to assert the reduction in deaths is a direct result of the walls and little else which judging by most other reports including when you factor in the reduction across the *entire* country rings pretty false.

[Gelgoog]

unfortunetely religious tolerance is a foreign concept and thats why iraq will never be a peaceful place unless under the boot of a tyrant.

[MyNameIsGreat]

Those walls were put up in April 2007, the surge started around January 2008, unless I'm mistaken.

So it sounds a little ridiculous to say that walls put up last year are responsible for the decrease in violence at the present time, coincidentally the same time of a massive troop surge in the region...

[Rapax]

Those walls were put up in April 2007, the surge started around January 2008, unless I'm mistaken.

So it sounds a little ridiculous to say that walls put up last year are responsible for the decrease in violence at the present time, coincidentally the same time of a massive troop surge in the region...

They're obviously part of the new strategy, not the single cause for its success. The surge has shown success but it will have to prove itself on a longterm basis, to determine whether it really did work.

[mrmouth]

Again, a fundamental lack of understanding regarding a military operation spanning a city with a population of millions. Whether it be concrete or razor wire, blocking off entire sections of Baghdad from one another is sound strategy. It funnels foot and auto traffic into manageable entry/exit points. It was really in response to the sectarian violence, which was driven by the insurgency which had moved into Baghdad. The insurgency was sowing the seeds of discontent, leading to neighbors and former friends turning on one another. Baghdad is unique in that it was ethnically diverse. Other problem cities in Anbar didn't have that problem, they were majority Sunni. The prospect of sectarian violence didn't exist there.

The plan was to wall off problem areas, and drive the insurgency out of Baghdad, which we did. The walls remain up to provide security, and to prevent the return of the insurgency to those hotbeds.

What you see every once and awhile, is the insurgency getting lucky, and a car bomb gets through. Its rare, but it happens unfortunately.

In the end the walls are simply a way of maintaining security in a huge city, with a relatively small force. Freeing up more assets to go north, to continue to hunt the insurgency.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Again, a fundamental lack of understanding regarding a military operation spanning a city with a population of millions. Whether it be concrete or razor wire, blocking off entire sections of Baghdad from one another is sound strategy. It funnels foot and auto traffic into manageable entry/exit points. It was really in response to the sectarian violence, which was driven by the insurgency which had moved into Baghdad. The insurgency was sowing the seeds of discontent, leading to neighbors and former friends turning on one another. Baghdad is unique in that it was ethnically diverse. Other problem cities in Anbar didn't have that problem, they were majority Sunni. The prospect of sectarian violence didn't exist there.

The plan was to wall off problem areas, and drive the insurgency out of Baghdad, which we did. The walls remain up to provide security, and to prevent the return of the insurgency to those hotbeds.

What you see every once and awhile, is the insurgency getting lucky, and a car bomb gets through. Its rare, but it happens unfortunately.

In the end the walls are simply a way of maintaining security in a huge city, with a relatively small force. Freeing up more assets to go north, to continue to hunt the insurgency.

Sound argument. However, I don't think you would disagree that the walls are only good as a short-term measure. In order to have lasting peace, some serious discussion and compromise by different Iraqi communities (and of course the occupying forces) is needed. But if until then walls are the only thing that will keep peace, then of course they should be built and maintained.

[Axeman]

Sound argument. However, I don't think you would disagree that the walls are only good as a short-term measure. In order to have lasting peace, some serious discussion and compromise by different Iraqi communities (and of course the occupying forces) is needed. But if until then walls are the only thing that will keep peace, then of course they should be built and maintained.

The walls are deffinately not a long term strategy, but for the time begin it is working, when we can get the Sunnis and Shiites to stop fighting, that is when there will be peace.

[mrmouth]

In order to have lasting peace, some serious discussion and compromise by different Iraqi communities (and of course the occupying forces) is needed. But if until then walls are the only thing that will keep peace, then of course they should be built and maintained.

I think the influence the insurgency has upon the populace can be likened to temporary insanity. Its a black cloud, and once its gone, the difference is staggering. My brother, a relatively high ranking officer in the Marine Corps, commanded a Marine RCT in Al Anbar. Once the insurgency was driven out, the change was drastic. People who had turned on each other went on as if nothing ever happened, as if they had woken up from a bad dream, and couldn't possibly hold one another accountable for their actions during that time. Life began again. The markets opened up again, along with the barber shops, the cafes, the soccer fields were full of children again.

Every person in Iraq has an identity card. Those neighborhood that are walled off, only let in people who live in that neighborhood or those who have business there, more to prevent the kind of attacks we saw yesterday and last week than to keep people segregated. If that were the case, people wouldn't be let out.

Baghdad is pretty incredible. It was never as gung ho over Saddam as one would believe a capital city would be. It marched to its own beat. Christians, Sunnis, Shiites and other more ancient ethnicities have lived side by side in peace even when other parts of Iraq were in turmoil over the decades.

I firmly believe things will go back to normal to a large extent when the walls come down. That might not be for awhile though. The insurgency is showing new life. Word is Iran has stepped up their efforts and is dealing with the remaining Sunni insurgents more and more and fighters are once again streaming in from Syria.

[ivan_the_terrible]

I think the influence the insurgency has upon the populace can be likened to temporary insanity. Its a black cloud, and once its gone, the difference is staggering. My brother, a relatively high ranking officer in the Marine Corps, commanded a Marine RCT in Al Anbar. Once the insurgency was driven out, the change was drastic. People who had turned on each other went on as if nothing ever happened, as if they had woken up from a bad dream, and couldn't possibly hold one another accountable for their actions during that time. Life began again. The markets opened up again, along with the barber shops, the cafes, the soccer fields were full of children again.

Interesting analogy. The obvious problem then is how to get rid of insurgency, and then keep it from coming back. In other words, what is to stop the black cloud from coming back when the walls come down? Its a bit of a pickle.

[danzig]

Interesting analogy. The obvious problem then is how to get rid of insurgency, and then keep it from coming back. In other words, what is to stop the black cloud from coming back when the walls come down? Its a bit of a pickle.

Give people a period of relative security, focus on some reconstruction problems and when the walls come down you have people who have a vested interest in rooting out the problem on their own thru Iraqi security forces (or yes even the local boys). We've seen that this appears to be the focus of the US, people tend not to be tolerate of things when they have something to lose as opposed to being miserable and nothing to lose. I think we all realize that ultimately Iraqi security has to be solved by Iraqis but they need a hand.

[s.rwitt]

In order to have lasting peace, some serious discussion and compromise by different Iraqi communities (and of course the occupying forces) is needed.

Very true. In fact the discussion between the Awakening Commitee, other tribal leaders, and the US has been the biggest part of the surge's success.

Not walls.

[s.rwitt]

Word is Iran has stepped up their efforts and is dealing with the remaining Sunni insurgents more and more and fighters are once again streaming in from Syria.

Can't say I'm too suprised about Iran.

[mrmouth]

Yeah.

Did you read the book See No Evil? Robert Baer, the author, former spook, talks about a meeting between bin laden and a Tajik tribal chief with ties to Iran, who was hosting the Iranian Padrasan (paramilitary intelligence), in 1996. We apparently knew, and I mean the intelligence was real solid, that the meeting pertained to a proposed allegiance between Iran and AQ by bin laden to strike the US.

The guy believes Iran and possibly another country directly had a hand in 9/11. Read the book if you haven't, its incredible. The guys no patriot either. Most of the book involves pointing out the US' mistakes and he is no fan of Bush. So his beliefs don't stem from being in favor of this administration or some war mongering stance. They stem from 20 years of working intel in the Middle East, including Beirut, where he flipped a few Iranian Padrasan himself.