"Operation Swarmer" And The First Strike War Doctrine

Salvador DALI "Prémonition de la guerre civile" [Premonition of Civil War ], 1936, Musée d'Art de Philadelphie

 

TO BE UPDATED WITH LINKS THROUGHOUT THE DAY, WATCH THIS SPACE AND SCROLL DOWN TO VII UPDATES

I posted late this morning as I have been watching the Breaking News, just in:

Baghdad, Iraq - The United States on Thursday launched what was termed the largest air assault since the U.S.-led invasion, targeting insurgent strongholds north of the capital, the military said. The U.S. military said Iraqi troops also were involved in the operation aimed at clearing a "suspected insurgent operating area northeast of Samarra."

Coalition forces have dubbed the assault "Operation Swarmer," which is an operation consisting of about 1,500 soldiers in all, including the Iraqi Army's 1st Brigade, 4th Division, the 101st Airborne Division's 3rd Brigade Combat Team and the 101st Combat Aviation Brigade. The assault is a combination of air and ground operations involving more than 200 tactical vehicles and more than 50 aircraft also participated in the operation.

According to the Coalition Press Information Center, initial reports indicate that a number of enemy weapons caches have been captured, containing artillery shells, explosives, IED-making materials, and military uniforms. A show of strength was a very much needed move by the coalition forces at this time:

Adnan Pachachi, the senior politician who administered the oath to Iraqi legislators in the absence of a speaker, spoke of a country in crisis.

"We have to prove to the world that a civil war is not and will not take place among our people," Pachachi told lawmakers. "The danger is still looming and the enemies are ready for us because they do not like to see a united, strong, stable Iraq." ⋯

Somehow I think the President is trying to tell us something, launching the largest air attack on Iraq in three years, on the same day and almost simultaneously giving the zero tolerance message in the national security report, following along the lines of Israel, against terrorism. Obviously undaunted by the difficult war in Iraq, he reaffirmed today his strike-first policy against terrorists and enemy nations saying that Iran may pose the biggest challenge for America.

In a 49-page national security report, the first in three years, the President said diplomacy is the U.S. preference in halting the spread of nuclear and other heinous weapons.

"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur -- even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," Bush wrote.
The report also says:

"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran. For almost 20 years, the Iranian regime hid many of its key nuclear efforts from the international community. Yet the regime continues to claim that it does not seek to develop nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime's true intentions are clearly revealed by the regime's refusal to negotiate in good faith; its refusal to come into compliance with its international obligations by providing the [International Atomic Energy Agency] access to nuclear sites and resolving troubling questions; and the aggressive statements of its President calling for Israel to 'be wiped off the face of the earth.'

"The United States has joined with our EU partners and Russia to pressure Iran to meet its international obligations and provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided."

Titled "National Security Strategy," the report summarizes Bush's plan for protecting America and directing U.S. relations with other nations. It is an updated version of a report Bush issued in 2002.

Here is the PDF of the entire document, as I would not have too much trust in the MSM to tell you accurately the contents of it.

My liberal friend Michael van der Galien is not happy with the first strike doctrine, and agrees with the theory held by some like Helen Thomas, that it is in violation of international law. Well I am sure as far as the left is concerned it will be simply an extension of the President's "breaking the domestic law" pattern expected of a dictator in his position. Ahem.

SCROLL DOWN TO VII IMPORTANT UPDATES BY CLICKING BELOW

UPDATE I: Greg @ The Political Pitbull has the video of the grumpy fossil Helen Thomas socking it to McClellan.

Confederate Yankee, sets the record straight on the equipment with some photos.

Washington relays my sentiments: "These operations are exactly what those of us who spent part of our lives in the military have been expecting for the last year and a half. It is also safe to assume that this demonstration of an insertion via air serves as a reminder to Iran that the capability is present to launch and land these forces if the need arises."

UPDATE II: Over @ the liberal Digby corner they are pleased to announce that Iran is the new Iraq according to the newly released document.

UPDATE III: Speculations are rife on CNN that the air raid today could have involved a high level target, presumably al-Zarqawi, which makes a lot of sense. Interesting article about him tightening the grip in Iraq here:

Al-Zarqawi -- who is from the largest tribe in Jordan -- has used his knowledge of tribal loyalties to bind him to the local population. He's also killed any sheiks who dare disagree, including several who recently agreed to negotiate with the Americans.

"I do know people, tribal people, who did negotiate. But they all got killed. Anyone who is talking to the Americans got killed," Zeidan says.

Ali Shukri, a retired Jordanian general and former adviser to the late King Hussein, agrees.

"Those tribal leaders who are in Iraq are definitely living in fear," he said.

Those who are not in Iraq and happen to be in the region are afraid of what Zarqawi could do to their immediate families. It seems he could reach them and he did reach them.[...]"The failure of America to win in Iraq means victory for Iran. And our real enemy is not America, it is Iran," he said.

Memeorandum features my post here and Real Clear Politics here.

IMPORTANT UPDATE IV: It all starts making sense: from The Counterterrorism Blog via The Anchoress:

The level of “chatter” by al Qaeda operatives is currently as high or higher than in the months prior to 9-11, and the question in many parts of the U.S. and European intelligence communities is not if al Qaeda will strike again, but when. Much of the thinking centers on the near-term. This is also reflected in current corporate security alerts being circulated among elite business establishments.

There are several factors that point to al Qaeda at least having a plan for an imminent attack. The first is the January appearance of Osama bin Laden himself after months of silence. The second is the repeated warnings and boasts from bin Laden, Zawahiri and on al Qaeda web sites of impending action.

Several analysts I have spoken with believe the leadership of the historic al Qaeda would not raise expectations of an attack, especially at a time of intense competition with Zarqawi’s operation for the mantle of carrying out international jihad, without something important afoot. The risk of losing credibility is too high. Zawahiri is already viewed as the person carrying out action, while bin Laden and Zawahiri have been left in the roles of elder statesmen, respected but no longer operational in the field of battle.

One corporate risk analysis group reported something else of interest: A March 10 posting on al-Hesbah website, known for posting al Qaeda messages, carried a message from the Global Islamic Media Front. The message gives a final warning to the United States before carrying out what it said would be two devastating attacks. The second attack would not be launched until after Washington had time to respond to the first one, the message said. The full blog is here.

This major attack was already foiled two days ago. Make sure you check out Joe Katzman @ The Winds Of Change for the most comprehensive power packed briefing update on the global situation thus far. The ongoing post is called Winds Of War. I love that site it's brilliant.

IMPORTANT UPDATE V: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has created a website where it will post documents captured in postwar Afghanistan and Iraq. The website is hosted by the Foreign Military Studies Office Joint Reserve Intelligence Center at Fort Leavenworth and will be updated continuously with new documents. Thank you to Hugh Hewitt, who also points to John Hinderaker's analysis.

Michelle Malkin gives us a flashback with Pajamas Media documentarian Andrew Marcus who interviews Rep. Hoekstra Feb. 16 about the docs: "They ought to be put on the Internet...unleash the power of the 'net on these 55,000 boxes of documents to see exactly what went on...Let the blogosphere go!"

These documents are "the final nail in the coffin of the liberal fantasy about al-Qaeda ties to Iraq."

Bloggers on this: The Anchoress, Captain's Quarters, Wizbang, Protein Wisdom, MVRWC, Sister Toldjah, Barcepundit, The Strata-Sphere, The Corner on National, The Astute Blogger, The Politburo Diktat,  Weekly Standard, The Dread Pundit Bluto, The Jawa Report, The Moderate Voice, Decision '08, Martin's Musings,

UPDATE VI: The Anchoress in my comment section, on my own thoughts above about the synchronized timing of everything that happened today: "Yes, that's pretty much what I've been thinking all day.

1) release Iraqi documents
2) reiterate commitment
3) air assault on insurgents

My prediction: we'll be out of Iraq sooner than anyone thinks, and the press has been sort of rope-a-doped today. Instead of reporting on Iraqi documents, his commitment and the air assault, they are fixating on...polls. He's making the press look very, very bad."

And of course there is Iran, and the increased chatter of al-Qaeda, and the fact that rumor has it that they were after a high value target in the raid today, which we can only assume to be al-Zarqawi.

Out of Iraq and into Iran. Ahem. Iran expresses their wish TODAY to hold face to face talks with the
US on Iraq. The master manipulators are preparing to make their next move.

UPDATE VII: From Gateway Pundit:

In a directive issued today (Friday), obtained by ABC News, the FBI says a posting on an extremist message board "advocated suicide attacks against sporting events as a cost-effective means of killing thousands of Americans."
The FBI says the Internet posting said the suicide attacks would be justified because the United States refused a truce offered by Osama bin Laden in his last videotaped statement, Jan. 19, 2006.
According to the FBI bulletin, the author of the posting recommended using "three to five blond or black American Muslim suicide bombers."
And, the Taliban announced their summer terror plans today.

From Bill Roggio on the unmasking of insurgents in Iraq.

CONSTANTLY UPDATED LINKS: More @ Drudge, American Digest, Outside The Beltway California Conservative, Stop The ACLU, Andrew Sullivan, JAWA, The Moderate Voice, Iraq The Model, The Belmont Club,  Flopping Aces, The Heretik, Decision '08, YARGB, Peakah Provocations (says "It's about time!") Unpartisan, Mudville Gazette, GOP Bloggers, The Dread Pundit, Church and State, Elephants in Academia, Big Dog.

Comments

[North by Northwest]

David,

You are ranting now.

In any event, it is true that many conservatives deeply resent the President and the Administration for their lack of restraint.

But few understand and/or acknowledge the 'Keynesian' effect of such increased spending. Remember, a large percentage is fueling domestic industries, sustaining and even creating jobs and coming full circle back into the coffers in the form of increased tax revenues.

liguid, Huan,

Right on!

Anchoress,

Let's just hope it isn't a 'out of Iraq and into Iran'... ;-)

[The Anchoress]

Somehow I think the President is trying to tell us something, launching the largest air attack on Iraq in three years, on the same day and almost simultaneously giving the zero tolerance message in the national security report, following along the lines of Israel, against terrorism.

Yes, that's pretty much what I've been thinking all day.

1) release Iraqi documents
2) reiterate commitment
3) air assault on insurgents

My prediction: we'll be out of Iraq sooner than anyone thinks, and the press has been sort of rope-a-doped today. Instead of reporting on Iraqi documents, his commitment and the air assault, they are fixating on...polls. He's making the press look very, very bad.

[liquid]

Now don't go all ballistic on me David for comparing your "antibush/antirepublican rant" to a pit bull today! It's just a doggy dog world! *wink*

[liquid]

I agree with you Huan, it's kinda like ummm, you know, one of those passive kinda aggressive pit bulls that ya might see with the twitchy waggy tail that's normally pretty family friendly but if the truth be known probably only when the pantry's full of that big dry chunky style purina.

[Huan]

David,
i find your comment about republicans wanting a president above the law wholey ignorant. perhaps i was premature to expect reasonable and logical arguments from you.

the American president must abide and function within the law. your point of contention suggest that he/she should abide by your law. why? or did you mean international law? why so? he was not elected to obey international law above american law. he is responsible to American laws and American citizens first and foremost.

[Huan]

i am not afraid of crimes. i do not fear being a victim of crime. but it may still happen to me.
i still want an active police force that will try to prevent crime and arrest criminals at every stage of their crimes, before i become a victim.

i am not afraid of terrorism, al qaeda, or iran.
i still think we need to confront these problems head on.

david and michael, i do not believe either of you are constructing reasonable arguments against either the policy of pre-emption, against the validity of warring against terrorism, or the actualities of waging that war.
please add some substance to the argument. i am sincerely interested.

[DavidByron]

I don't understand the comment about international (ie American) law banning these attacks. I thought Republicans wanted a president who was above the law? Isn't that the whole point? The great leader canot be tied down by petty concerns such as legality when your very lives hang in the balance?

Republicans are like the children of Israel demanding their King. God has a warning for those who give up their rights for the pretense of security:

"This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."

Like the Egyptians who cried out to Pharoah, "make us your slaves so we may live".

Christians of all people should know better. It's interesting. That's one of the very few pieces of text in the bible where God Almighty is actually quoted word for word. Oh well. He probably wasn't saying anything important, right?

[Subcomandante Bob]

National Nitwit has the inside story on the new Iraq offensive.

[DavidByron]

Oh please don't be confused by what I said: I didn't mean to imply that Bush is actually protecting you all from these gnats. Quite the contrary. He's probably multiplied Al Qaeda's power by twenty... which is still totally insignificant.

And don't think I believe America has no real threats. Your economy is going down the toilet. That's a real threat. Your Republican senate just voted along strict party lines to raise the national debt to nine trillion dollars. and you're worried about guys armed with box cutters?!

Nine trillion dollars. What's that? About $100,000 per full time worker in America. You want to ask the average American how long it would take them to pay of a $100,000 debt? Never.

Oh what's that? A beardy-weirdy in a cave in Afghanistan says he's going to destroy America? Oh well, why didn't you say so? Forget about the deficit. Better go bomb Iraq again!

Nobody who supports the president can be considered a "conservative" in my opinion. Instead they are people who have given over their minds to irrational fears pumped up by the administration. Easily manipulated "useful idiots".

Don't make me quote Goebbels!

[North by Northwest]

David,

It seems to me that you are mixing two rather distinctly separate issues into one so as to make your point:

(1) A certain American characteristic based on it's largely 'self-sufficient' and 'isolated' status vis-a-vis vastly differing multinational realities and historical experiences which have been forming European characteristics described by you as largely 'nonchalant'; and

(2) the rationale for preemptive military actions against rogue Nations.

While these two elements are certainly intertwined, your cause-effect argument is IMO misplaced. I don't propose to outline the well documented cultural differences between European and US characteristics as they relate to perception of homeland security and their disparate reaction to threats thereupon.

I do however aver that most coverage of security issues in the US is much more a reaction to an already established and very much prevalent perception amongst the vast majority of the American population as supposed to the cause thereof. I do believe the so called 'fear-mongering', as you describe the administration's and MSM's coverage of the 'war on terror' and related issues, is much more reactive than proactive and much less designed to lead than to satisfy an existing desire to have reassurance reiterated, that the threat is being dealt with. Sure there is political calculus involved, but that's not a revelation nor unusual.

What is America so afraid of? I'd rather be bombed than live like that.

Despite being most definitely debatable, this is nevertheless a perfectly legitimate viewpoint for an individual, but entirely unacceptable for any government. Apart from my reasoning above, that 9/11 has caused the prolonged and continuing state of fear and that such state of mind has been embedded into the American psyche, and that as such any so called 'war-mongering' rhetoric is merely a reflection thereof, a responsible government of the largest member of our current global economy cannot afford to ignore developments which are threatening to derail global, and thus necessarily domestic economic stability. Moral considerations clearly come second, but when it comes to public opinion, move up to first place as no government is able to explain the intricate interdependencies binding all members of the global economy together.

[Paul of York]

We Americans, to a degree, do not believe in giving a gnat the first bite if we can smash him as he gets ready to bite.
We don't believe in someone killing any of us for our beliefs or nationality. If any one individual wishes to destroy any one of us because we are Americans, we'd just as soon kill them first.
Perhaps, David, you still believe in standing in rows allowing the other fellow the first shot, we still don't think that's the way to go about it.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

David Byron I need to agree with you to a very large degree. I find it incredible how Americans let themselves be scared by a few distorted terrorists as well.

[Liquid]

David, Thank goodness that there are others, unlike you, in this world that are willing to do the "dirty work" for freedom!

[Washington]

This operation is much needed. I think that people are often unaware of how much goes into planning a large-scale operation. It involves a large number of people NOT actually fighting at the tip of the spear.

These types of ops are what many of us who had careers in the military have been expecting for the last year and a half-especially since the supply of air-delivered munitions has gone back up after the initial air assault on Iraq.

[DavidByron]

Are you afraid of Iran?
Are you afraid of Al-Qaeda?
Were you afraid of Saddam Hussein?

I used to think the fear-mongering was some sort of running joke. Black humour - well the British are used to that. After a while I began to realise it was quite serious. American people apparently really were afraid of these gnats. Terrified of the terrorists. The media and the government actively encouraging this fear. I honestly just didn't believe Americans were on the level about being so irratioanlly afraid for several years after 9-11.

What is America so afraid of? I'd rather be bombed than live like that.

How can anyone sane call these attacks by America "self defence" as if America was actually in any danger? Europeans shake their heads in disbelief as this Elephant shrieks and panics over a mouse.

In the thread on Milosevic I compared the terrified over the top reaction by America to a single act of terrorism with the measured response Serbia took.

But it's not just Serbia of course, all of Europe has experience of terrorism. Does it really have to be stated out loud? You don't react to terrorism by being terrified. DUH. It's a bore. It's an inconvenience. It's a matter for the police. It's not a big deal.

Except in America where the population is petrified. Scared of every shadow. It's not just the right, although they seem worse, no doubt because it's their man who is spreading so much of the fear.

the report summarizes Bush's plan for protecting America

Oh save me, save me Mr Bush! Oh Mr Bush the big bad terrorists are coming at me with box cutters. Oh Mr Bush I have a splinter in my finger - attack another country to get it out.

What happened to believing in small government?

I used to think it was funny. Even my local news tries to scare the hell out of it's viewers every night. It's hilarious. They go and find dirty linen in hotels or less than perfect health scores in restraunts. I suppose it's good for the ratings. But it's been utterly corrosive for the character of your nation.

[Michael Hinton]

Thanks Alexandra. Yours is the only blog I have found on this operation. Now I know why you took a bit longer to come up today. I will be checking for new links today.

[North by Northwest]

"The world is better off if tyrants know that they pursue W.M.D. at their own peril," the strategy says. It acknowledges misjudgments about Iraq's weapons program that preceded the invasion three years ago, but it is clearly unwilling to give ground on that decision. The report notes that "there will always be some uncertainty about the status of hidden programs since proliferators are often brutal regimes that go to great lengths to conceal their activities."

This quote from the NYT today sets out the important distinction over which we have had so many debates: The emphasis must always be placed on "certainty". 'Bush lied People died' does not reflect this paradigm. I cannot find any reasonable argument why the so called 'coalition of the willing' should have acted any differently at the time and given the to this day acknowledged 'uncertainty'. What responsible leader can accept 'uncertainty' in a question of WMD.

As I said before, the criticism against 'Operation Iraqi Freedom', a title more relevant these days than ever before, addresses in all reality merely the administrations' communication policy with which to explain the war in Iraq. As the report points out, the underlying rationale and sound reasoning has not changed with the benefit of hindsight. And that doesn't change either with all the many mistakes which undoubtedly have been made both on the planning and execution side of the operation.