The Redhunter

From his opening statement

GEN. HAMMOND: ...Now, in Baghdad, our mission is unchanged. It's to protect the people. We accomplish this by defeating the enemies of Iraq, improving the Iraqi security force's capability through partnership, developing the Iraqi police capacity, supporting political and economic growth, ultimately transitioning the Iraqi security forces in their responsibility for overall security.

"Our mission is ... to protect the people." I know I sound like a broken record but this is straight out of U.S. Army / Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual 3-24. For the uninitiated that would be the manual written by then Lt. Gen Petraeus' team in 2006 and basically forms the basis for everything we've done as part of the "surge".

The point is that the first focus of counterinsurgents must be to protect the population. Only then can political and economic progress take place. It does NOT work the other way around.

Continuing with Maj. Gen. Hammond's introduction

Now, our operations against these criminals extend well outside Sadr City as well, to all of Baghdad. We're pursuing the enemy, and we're searching for weapons caches across Baghdad, focusing in known support areas. I remind my soldiers we attack, attack, attack, across all lines of operation.

Now, the areas -- we're focusing outside of Sadr City on both the east and west side of the Tigris River, which -- as you're aware, it bisects Baghdad. Now we're going to continue to hunt these criminals, to locate and destroy their weapons storage areas, through targeted intelligence-driven raids.

Now, what's interesting is many of the leaders of these criminal elements have fled. They left. Our message to those enemy leaders who have left: Don't come back. To the few who remain, it's going to be all about attack, attack, attack. Leave or be captured or killed.

The conditions in Baghdad are changing. There's no place for those terrorists and criminals. The people are fed up with them. They're tired of the violence and destruction. They vote to move on.
...

Now, in partnership with our Iraqi counterparts, we've hired and trained over 8,500 new police. It's important to note though that 3,250 of those recruits are former Sons of Iraq.

So we're really aggressively pushing to get our Sons of Iraq, a little over 30,000, transitioned to other employment, much of that with the Iraqi army, the national police or the Iraqi police.

Now, right now we have over 22,000 Iraqi police in Baghdad. And we're rapidly approaching our end goal of 25,000, which is at the end of what we call phase one expansion.

Phase two's expansion is going to take us up to 35,200 police in Baghdad. And I hope to get there no later than February '09. This expansion sets the conditions for the future of Baghdad under civil control with police providing the necessary security throughout the city. So what's next? I've got to tell you, I'm optimistic about the future of Baghdad. But there's still a heck of a lot of work to be done. We will build on our success in specific areas.

First, our mission of protecting the population: That will not change. Security is our number-one task. And in partnership with the Iraqi security forces, we will continue to pursue those who operate outside the rule of law.

We will continue to expand our ability to be among the people of Baghdad. We're going to follow the COIN strategy that we've grown into. And as it is today, we currently have 51 joint security stations, 23 combat outposts.

That's a significant increase. And we plan to increase this total number by probably 15 percent over the next six months. It's critical that we not spend our time in the FOBs, the conventional FOBs; that we get out with the people where we need to be.

This last part about getting out of the large Forward Operating Bases and living among the people has been a critical part of 2007 and what is popularly termed the "surge". One of our mistakes from the early years was concentrating our troops in these large FOBs and then sending them out on raids. As Field Manual 3-24 makes clear, this does not work.

To be fair to these commanders, such as Gen. George Casey, they did not have enough troops to do anything else. But the other side of the coin is that they did not ask for the additional troops. It was only when Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno took over as commander of Multi-National Corps Iraq in late 2006 (a position that made him #2 in Iraq) did anyone challenge the existing strategy. Odierno told Casey to his face that more troops were needed. Casey wouldn't listen, which is why he was replaced with Gen. Petraeus.

The other thing of note was the part about the Sons of Iraq, formerly called Concerned Citizens Councils. It's not so much "political progress" as it is winning over the people. it's all about winning the "Hearts and Minds" of the populace. NOTE: I can almost guarantee that you do not know the true meaning of "Hearts and Minds" since it is one of the most misunderstood terms in all of warfare (I didn't until recently) so please follow the link!

After Hammond's opening statement, it was time for the reporters to ask their questions. As is usual, they were smart and tough, yet polite. One thing I've noticed is that the quality of the press corps, at least in these briefings, has improved over the past few years. Of course, what their editors do with the stories is another matter entirely.

Q General, it's Tom Bowman with NPR. You mentioned that there are a thousand filed claims in Sadr City. You paid out about 70,000. Can you give us a breakdown on those claims; how many for property damage, how many for injured or killed civilians?

GEN. HAMMOND: Tom, I can't give you a specific -- I don't have the numbers in front of me. But I'd probably guess and say probably 85 percent is for property damage, much of that property damage coming at the hands of indirect fire that was shot from Sadr City. Much of that fell short. We had a few mortar rounds that fell short in Jamila market, which I think you know is the critical market that provides much to the rest of Baghdad, and about 25 percent to one-third burned down as a result of short rounds. But probably 85 percent is paid out for property damage as a result of that, and just the direct combat fighting.

I think as you know, that our soldiers are very careful in the way that we maneuver and place precise fire on targets. I would tell you quite clearly -- having been up there quite a bit -- that the folks that we're fighting against, these criminals, they didn't care much about collateral damage. But it's our responsibility -- we assume the responsibility for the ground we occupy with our partners, Iraqi security forces, and we work together in the CMOC in dealing with the people as they come in.

It's very encouraging when a thousand people step forward. In the past they wouldn't have done that, out of the fear of the militias. They wouldn't have stepped forward. But they came forward seeking the assistance, and we well support them.

Q Fifteen percent would be injured or killed civilians? Is that right? So you're talking dozens, at least, of injured or killed civilians, correct?

GEN. HAMMOND: I would say -- just an estimate -- probably about 15 percent of the citizens that I'm aware of could've -- injured. Injured or killed. I'm not -- I can't get precise there, but I will give you a more precise answer if you stay in touch with me. I'll help you out on that.

Q (Off mike ) -- when you talk about mortars and rockets falling short and creating damage -- I mean, clearly, if you're paying out compensation claims, it's your rockets, the MLRS, it's the Predators dropping Hellfire missiles and it's the tank rounds that are also causing damage. Isn't that right?

GEN. HAMMOND: Well, no. No and yes. Let me -- let me be more precise. No MLRS rockets have been fired anywhere near Sadr City. It was a limited number of rockets on a precision strike against a series of high-value targets. And I can tell you that the collateral damage from that was very, very limited, and I know that because I got in a helicopter; I flew right over the site and sat on top of it and looked at it personally and examined it.

As far as any short rounds, as I describe them, from mortars or rockets, we didn't fire any mortars or rockets anywhere into Sadr City. It was the militia that were firing these from different ranges within Sadr City off of sort of rigged-up rails that might or might not be accurate, and quite often -- not quite often, but at times -- would create conditions where a short round, in fact, would fall on the innocent people. So they not only -- they made a point of not only embarking -- terror at the range they were trying to shoot the rocket but also at short range where they made the mistakes, definitely.

As far as any tank rounds that we shot which -- we did fire some well-placed tank rounds in very limited numbers when it was necessary to defeat a threat that was being imposed upon the people or our soldiers, but we are very -- we've been very specific and careful in how we have fought up there. I've been very proud of our soldiers, the fact that we haven't made many mistakes because of the concern for the number one mission we had. The number one mission was not to defeat the militia; it was to protect the people, to protect the people.

Q Right, but you -- if you -- just one last thing. If you've been so careful, why do you have the thousand claims against you?

GEN. HAMMOND: Well, a lot of people came out of the -- because these people had a legitimate claim, they felt, that they wanted to process. A lot of these -- that sort of gives you some sort of indication, I think, for the amount of indiscriminate damage that was imposed upon the innocent people by a relentless, unforgiving -- lack of conscience -- enemy.

I have problem with these tough sorts of questions. Theya re fine, insofar as the objective is to make sure that we are trying to fight as cleanly as possible. This is in keeping with FM 3-24. The problem comes when the press use issues like collateral damage to simply bash the U.S., or to insinuate that we're the only ones causing damage, and that if only we weren't there Iraq would be a nice peaceful place. Tough questions are admirable if the objective is to help us win the war, disgraceful if they're used to encourage cut-and-run. The other consideration is whether the critic spends all of his or her time attacking the U.S., or whether they spend time exposing the horrors caused by the terrorist insurgents.

So we'll see what NPR does with this story. Ok, I'm not optimistic either.

The reality of warfare is that no matter how careful you are things will be destroyed that we didn't mean to hit, and people will be killed or hurt that we weren't aiming at. I know this sounds macabre, but what it comes down to is a calculation as to whether the gains are more than the losses. One thing that should be noted, especially by hawkish right-wingers, is that if you want to win a counterinsurgency you had better keep the use of force to just what is absolutely necessary and no more. If you don't believe me pick up a copy of Field Manual 3-24.

Later we had the "Nancy Pelosi" question

Q General, it's David Morgan from Reuters. In terms of the cease-fire agreement that brought the recent spate of violence in Sadr City to an end, can you tell us, to your knowledge, did Iran play a role in restraining the special groups that were involved in the attacks?

And to what extent did their influence bring an end to the violence?

GEN. HAMMOND: Well, I don't know. I think that, you know, any time -- we've seen the past the Muqtada al-Sadr's declaration of cease-fire have impact. In the particular case this time around, what we dealt with, I think there were really two groups. There were those that chose to honor the desire to decrease, to eliminate the violence, and there are those that chose otherwise. And the ones that otherwise -- the ones I'm talking about, all you can really label them as is criminals. You know, there's either those that follow the law or those that wish to break the law.

And we're at that point now where I think the real influence in all this, in my opinion, is the people. I think we're seeing -- and I've been here before in Baghdad, in MND-Baghdad, in a different role. I've seen a significant difference now, where more and more I'm seeing the people, the people are stepping forward, and the number of tips we're receiving now, it's unbelievable. They're stepping forward. They're sharing information. They're telling us in Sadr City, in Area Gold, they're very thankful to the Iraqi army. They don't want the Iraqi army to leave. They're thankful that the militias have backed away. These people want to get on with life. It's really a remarkable situation to see as it's developed here in the last -- really last month. Very positive. Very positive what I see out there ahead.

In other words, Madame Speaker, you don't know what you're talking about.

There is a lot more to the briefing, most all of which is encouraging. You know we're on the right track when Voice of America reporter Al Pessin voices optimism as to the state of the Iraqi Security Forces in a question. But for that and other exchanges you'll have to watch the video or read the transcript. I'll move on to Maj. Gen. Hammond's final remarks:

Thanks for your time. The only thing I'd ask -- the message I'd ask you to take back is something like this. These youngsters you have here, soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, they're your credentials.

They're the nation's credentials. They're less than 1 percent of the nation who volunteer to serve here. And they want -- they want this mission. They're doing one heck of a job. I think I'd ask you, as you go forth, to find an Army, Navy, Marine or Air Force family member somewhere, in a local mall, wherever you go about places, and thank them. Because those folks have lent -- they've lent to us their service member here to fight this battle for freedom and for the needs of these Iraqi people. And their service member's doing one heck of a job.

I think the glass is half-full. I think clearly that it's an encouraging situation we have right now. But we still got a lot of work we got to get done. And we're up for it, we're up to it, and I'm looking forward to tomorrow.

I have nothing further. Thanks for your time.