Some Small Good News From Iraq

[DanS]

Today, 11 Iraqis ambushed a convoy, resulting in no American injuries and 11 dead Iraqis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7792-2003Jul4.html?nav=hptop_tb

Now you are correct to ask why this is good news, especially since 1 American soldier was also killed today by a sniper in Baghdad.

As I understand it, the first stage of a guerilla war is taking potshots at troops in a semi-organized fashion. Some sabotage is also useful at this stage. The second stage of a guerilla war is fighting out in the open (whatever the terrain may be) with small units in an organized fashion using hit and run tactics. It has been said that making the transition from one stage to another is difficult.

This ambush seems to indicate that the terrain of Iraq is inhospitable to this second stage of guerilla action. Further, it seems to indicate that our troops have capabilities and composition sufficient to counter opposition above a onesies or twosies level. Certainly, this ambush made squad-level opposition appear ineffective.

[GePap]

So an attack against the US is god news, as long as it failed to cause us any harm?

So we can prevent any insurgency from growing? Oh goody. Now can you tell us how we can do to END it? Since the first stage insurgents have not done that badly in the past month.

[DanS]

You're right. The first-stage insurgents have been effective. However, we're not sitting on our hands otherwise. We're organizing an Iraqi national army, for instance. We're adding some small police capabilities every day, for another instance. We're reorganizing national bureaus to take care of the people as well. That's how you end the insurgency.

[Spiffor]

Well, squad level guerilla needs to take place either in dense forests / mountains, where they can hide easily after hitting, or in urban areas. Iraqi mountains are under Kurd control, and support the US, and there are no forests of any significance in Iraq (about 0,2% of Iraq's surface is covered by forests ).
As such, the squad strategy may only work in cities, but that would require a significant support from the locals. Time will tell if such a thing happens. I personally don't think so: while very few Iraqis enjoy seeing Yank troops roaming on their streets, I assume even fewer Iraqis want to see Saddam back. ANd an organized resistance will most likely end up supporting Saddam.

[DanS]

As such, the squad strategy may only work in cities, but that would require a significant support from the locals. Time will tell if such a thing happens. I personally don't think so: while very few Iraqis enjoy seeing Yank troops roaming on their streets, I assume even fewer Iraqis want to see Saddam back. ANd an organized resistance will most likely end up supporting Saddam.

Well, you never know until it's tried. You might be blinded by your doctrine, rather than helped by it. That's why this ambush is good news, even if preliminary. Maybe they'll be successful in the next ambush. Who knows?

[Kidlicious]

The second stage isn't necessary. The rebels will be successfull if the US pulls out. There is much danger of that if the first stage continues to be successfull and Bush continues to fail to govern Iraq.

[DanS]

The US won't pull out, given the current Level 1 activity. Implicit in Bush's comments yesterday was that this kind of activity wouldn't push us out. And again, we aren't sitting on our hands, even though our actions might appear right now to be insufficient.

[Spiffor]

Well, you never know until it's tried. You might be blinded by your doctrine, rather than helped by it. That's why this ambush is good news, even if preliminary. Maybe they'll be successful in the next ambush.

Erm, I have trouble finding the causal link between these sentences Could you please elaborate ?

[DanS]

Well, I'm only saying that putting an insurgency in nice neat stages might bear no reflection to reality. And we can talk about how the terrain is inhospitable. But in the end, we just don't know these things to be true until proven repeatedly. Maybe they'll learn a thing or two from this ambush and be successful in the next ambush, for instance, which will help disprove the theory.

[Spiffor]

Indeed.

However, I still don't think the desert / farming scenery is adapted to this kind of ambushes, so I continue to assume they'll only have success in cities, except if occupation soldiers really let their guard down.

[GePap]

I don;t think that all armed groups back a return by Saddam: the longer isntability lasts, and the more convoluted a return to Iraqi governance is, the more time for new groups to spring up to life backing different agendas.

As for tactics: If the Baathists coiuld crush a much bigger and better equiped in srgency in 1991, that happeend to have popular support in the areas it occured, there is no chance that militarilly insurgents could do even a tenth of the damage to the US. BUt as Kid said, the political consequences in OIraq and outside Iraq of a continuation of any insurgency are detrimental to basic US interests and this admin's future in particular.

[DanS]

The only place where a Level 1 insurgency really makes any difference is in Baghdad. We can be thankful that Saddam was a paranoid dictator and the gift of geograhy.

For instance, as I understand it, most of the electricity in the Shia South is independent of the Baghdad grid. This is so that Saddam could punish the South as he saw fit and so that the South couldn't rebel against him by sabotaging services to Baghdad. But as of yet, there has been no insurgency in the South, and we can proceed apace with reconstruction there even though electricity in Baghdad has been cut by sabotage (as happened at the end of last week).

So far, the most effective action against the US since the end of the war was the cutting of electricity supplies to Baghdad last week. It made us look awful.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Some Small Good News From Iraq

Originally posted by DanS
Today, 11 Iraqis ambushed a convoy, resulting in no American injuries and 11 dead Iraqis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7792-2003Jul4.html?nav=hptop_tb

Now you are correct to ask why this is good news, especially since 1 American soldier was also killed today by a sniper in Baghdad.

As I understand it, the first stage of a guerilla war is taking potshots at troops in a semi-organized fashion. Some sabotage is also useful at this stage. The second stage of a guerilla war is fighting out in the open (whatever the terrain may be) with small units in an organized fashion using hit and run tactics. It has been said that making the transition from one stage to another is difficult.

This ambush seems to indicate that the terrain of Iraq is inhospitable to this second stage of guerilla action. Further, it seems to indicate that our troops have capabilities and composition sufficient to counter opposition above a onesies or twosies level. Certainly, this ambush made squad-level opposition appear ineffective.

I wouldn't read that much into it. The guerillas have hardly been around long enough to do anything. Usually takes years to get to next stage. Probably haven't even gotten their recruitment scheme up and running yet.

The thing about guerillas is that you can't just fight to a stalemate with them. The longer they're around the weaker you look and the more sympathy they garner...

[DanS]

True. True. It normally does take years. But then, Saddam ran the government only a couple of months ago, so they might have a head start on organization. No?

[KrazyHorse]

On organisation yes, which is why they've actually been managing some successes.

But remember your Mao. They haven't been around long enough that they can swim "as fish in the sea" with the general pop yet. If they are based around restoring the Baath to power then they're going to have to convince people to hate the US more than they hate them first. Then you'll see some more pitched (if still limited) battles.