How the US plans to 'retake' Baghdad

By David Loyn
BBC News, Baghdad

Gen Petraeus says he is confident violence can be reduced

America's last best shot at ending the chaos and violence of Iraq rests on the shoulders of a man who should know the latest thinking on how to deal with this kind of morass.

He wrote the book.

In December, Lt Gen David Petraeus signed off the manuscript for the first US manual on counter-insurgency doctrine since it was last revised a generation ago for lessons learnt after Vietnam.

Speaking at his first press conference since taking over in Baghdad, Gen Petraeus was cautious about talking up success.

The troop "surge" would not all be in place until June, and he does not expect victory by then.

There have been some successes. The visible presence of armoured vehicles on street corners and tens of thousands of Iraqi and American troops spreading out across the city as part of the new security plan have made some difference.

There has been a significant drop in violence in the centre of Baghdad at least - with fewer bodies found, fewer lethal suicide bombs, and the return of hundreds of families to homes that had been seized by rival gangs, although Gen Petraeus made it clear that returns were lower than he wanted.

America expected that the insurgents would change their tactics in response.

When the operation began, the commander in Baghdad Maj Gen Joseph Fil, said: "There's an air of suspense throughout the city. Many of these extremists are laying low and watching us to see what we do and how we do it."

There is evidence that since then Shia assassins have moved out to the suburbs, while Sunni insurgent groups have become stronger in Diyala province, north-east of Baghdad.

Gen Petraeus said it was "very likely" that more US troops would be sent to the area to deal with the new threat.

Flexibility and adaptability are key counterinsurgency tools, according to his new manual; being able to combine conventional war-fighting capability with "softer" skills is also essential.

But at the core of this, the Americans are working to a much more aggressive military doctrine than before.

The frequent presence of a B1 "Lancer" bomber - making a huge din as it flies low over the skies of the city day and night - is a reminder of that.

This is the first time since the invasion in 2003 that fixed-wing bombers of this type have been seen here routinely.

US President George W Bush described the change simply when he announced the surge, saying that up to now America has been good at "clearing ground", but not "holding" it.

Three stages

The operation runs in three phases.

There is some concern about the Iraqis' ability to do the job

The first is to clear the ground - moving in and removing any obvious threats.

But the aggression comes in the second phase, controlling the ground, and the pace of the operation will depend on the ability of troops to do that, so they can move onto phase three - retaining it.

There are 10 districts in Baghdad, and the Americans are planning to quickly establish a major forward base in each of them, working alongside Iraqis.

Smaller neighbourhood operating bases will be set up as security allows.

These though will be tempting targets for insurgents armed with mortars and rockets, as Britain found when they tried a similar tactic in Helmand province in southern Afghanistan last year.

In Baghdad, the more assertive roadblocks have slowed traffic to a crawl, making them an easy hit for bombers.

Already bombers have simply left cars in the traffic chaos near checkpoints detonating them after they walked away. The main market in the centre of Baghdad is now a pedestrian-only zone, to stop car bombs.

The Americans know that the insurgents will find other targets. Gen Fil said they had "a thirst for blood like I have never seen before".

'Achilles heel'

Rebuilding infrastructure and improving job prospects in a city where unemployment is incalculably high will go hand in hand with the military operation, the US has said.

It is difficult to see how America can keep up its commitments here at this level for very long

The first amendment to the plan came in the early days when Gen Fil said he still needed more engineers to come in alongside the brigade-strength of US infantry now pouring into Baghdad every month.

Success depends on securing better power and water supplies, as well as other improvements to the well-being of the people of Baghdad.

Gen Fil also said he had asked for more combat helicopters and this could prove to be the Achilles heel of the operation.

The US has lost five helicopters to insurgent fire in a month, and there are new weapons out there that are doing the damage.

The modern history of guerrilla warfare has harsh lessons for Iraq.

The former Soviet Union lost the war in Afghanistan in 1985, six years after its invasion, only when the US supplied lightweight "stinger" anti-aircraft missiles to the mujahideen.

The will of the US was sapped in Vietnam when they began to lose helicopters on a huge scale.

There is another major weakness in the plan too, and that is the dependence on Iraqi troops.

In public, US commanders say their quality is growing every day. But privately, US and British forces who have trained the troops are concerned about the Iraqis' ability to do the job.

There was a mutiny of Iraqi troops in the south when they were ordered to go to Baghdad.

British hopes to hand over another southern province at the end of last year have been postponed because of the incapacity of the Iraqi forces there, and the stated aim of UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett to hand over Basra "by the spring" is not conceivable on present trends, although Prime Minister Tony Blair was much more upbeat recently.

He said: "In Basra, over the coming months, we will transfer more of the responsibility directly to Iraqis."

'Overstretch'

The biggest challenge to the new plan comes in the depth of American political will.

It is difficult to see how the US can keep up its commitments here at this level for very long, given the growing strength of American public opinion running against engagement in Iraq.

According to his own manual, that would suggest that Gen Petraeus is in trouble already.

He wrote: "Maintaining security in an unstable environment requires vast resources... protracted counterinsurgency operations are hard to sustain. The effort requires a firm political will and substantial patience by the government, its people, and the countries providing support."

The complex, tough environment of this kind of warfare, with no quick solutions and few clear measures of success, will be hard to explain in the 24-hour news environment.

Even before they started this latest hardest stage of the war, American forces were under severe pressure.

The outgoing US Army Chief of Staff, Gen Peter Schoomaker, has told a congressional committee that the demands placed meant that the army now has to go to "extraordinary lengths to respond".

The five new brigades promised for the security of Baghdad will require translators and support staff, as well as huge amounts of equipment.

The committee heard that 40% of US equipment is in Iraq or Afghanistan or in maintenance, reducing readiness for other conflicts.

As well as the pressure on kit, Gen Schoomaker talked about the impact on the soldiers themselves, faced by repeated tours to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Concern over "overstretch" has also been voiced increasingly in public by senior British officers.

The calculation of the insurgents, already reducing their attacks, could be to wait out the summer, hoping the US does not have a long-term commitment.

The calculation of the US-led coalition is that they can turn Baghdad round, and with it Iraq, by soaking the streets with well-armed and well-trained soldiers and police.

One Iraqi military unit has been patrolling central Baghdad with a megaphone broadcasting this message: "We will hit with an iron hand anyone who takes us on."

Their success will be measured by what follows the iron hand.