Is the insurgency over?

[DanS]

Yeh, that was a particularly violent day.

Like dv8ed, I don't understand the target of the embassy. It's a symbolic target, but the most successful attacks so far have been aimed at taking out basic services and stopping the coalition from doing things that Saddam couldn't do (like flying commercially into Baghdad International). I guess the embassy does embarrass the coalition, and forestalls normal embassy functions, but still it looks like it was done merely for revenge.

[MichaeltheGreat]

It's a perfect sort of target.

A way of telling everyone "they don't control what happens here, they can't make you safe"

There's a limit to what the US can physically secure over a country that large, with the manpower we have in place.

Whether things are dying down, changing gears, or this is a resupply and redeploy phase, we'll know a bit down the line.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It's a perfect sort of target.

A way of telling everyone "they don't control what happens here, they can't make you safe"

There's a limit to what the US can physically secure over a country that large, with the manpower we have in place.

Whether things are dying down, changing gears, or this is a resupply and redeploy phase, we'll know a bit down the line.

thats why we need Iraqis to secure the country.

For example (from Centcom):
"An Iraqi guard at a power station in Baghdad observed three individuals placing a burlap bag along the side of a road. 1st AD soldiers investigated and determined the bag contained an improvised explosive device. The IED exploded before the explosive ordnance team could detonate it. "

whats amazing is that the flow of info from Iraqis to coalition forces has increased in the last few weeks, despite the abundant evidence that coalition troops cant keep them safe.

Why?
1. The reports about iraqi info coming in are all Pentagon lies
2. The iraqis are responding to the attacks on them by increasing the flow of info to the coalition. They are either acting out of anger at the baathists, or are putting their country and community ahead of individual safety
3. Things arent as unsafe there as they look (well at least prior to Jordan embassy bombing) Few friendly Iraqis are illed, proportionate to number of friendly iraqis, and many iraqis who are killed in baathist attacks have nothing to do with the coalition, so helping the coalition doesnt reduce ones safety all that much.
4. Some other explanation

[MichaeltheGreat]

I wasn't aware we get daily news coverage of the numbers of Iraqis killed, one way or another, unless we kill some who are caught ****ing with us, or some get killed along with our troops.

Iraqi on Iraqi incidents are not being reported with any consistency.

We're getting good cooperation in a lot of areas, some cooperation in others, and next to none in a few hardcore areas.

My point is that we can't conclude anything definite from the pattern of activity so far, especially in the limited time frame since Uday and Qusay got what they had coming.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

We're getting good cooperation in a lot of areas, some cooperation in others, and next to none in a few hardcore areas.

several recent reports of cooperation in Tikrit.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
My point is that we can't conclude anything definite from the pattern of activity so far, especially in the limited time frame since Uday and Qusay got what they had coming.

yes, but the pattern of increased flow of info started BEFORE Uday and Qusay were killed. In fact they were found through just such a lead, from an Iraqi in Mosul.

[MichaeltheGreat]

In a country of 25 million, that's at least a result of increased access, and increased presence of translators and civil affairs units who were still deploying in May.

There are plenty of people there who are sympathetic to the US presence, at least in comparison to the alternative.

I don't think anyone in their right minds (well, maybe a few of our Eurocom friends, but I contradict myself ) thought there was a general uprising by the Iraqi people.

[DAVOUT]

Insurgents need the cooperation of the population. This cooperation can result from political adhesion or from terror. In Iraq, the majority of the population is certainly not willing to risk their lives in fighting the US, whereas for the Baathists it is their last chance not to be destroyed in the outcome. As many ordinary Iraquis have suffered from the Baathists, they are inclined to help the US. If the Baathist resistance has any strenght, it should initiate a terror campaign against Iraqis collaborating with the US, possibly through a blind terror campaign. But we cannot exclude that the Baathist resistance will never get the momentum required to expand the operations and recruit new fighters.

That is the drawback of Saddam Hussein style of command : after the loss of a few reliable men, he has no longer access to anything.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It's a perfect sort of target.

A way of telling everyone "they don't control what happens here, they can't make you safe"

or it could be al - qaeeda or a similar group, following up on the Jakarta blast. Zarqawi had (has?) people on the ground in Iraq, and he has attacked Jordan related targets before (notably a US official in Amman)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

I don't think anyone in their right minds (well, maybe a few of our Eurocom friends, but I contradict myself ) thought there was a general uprising by the Iraqi people.

I think there are quite a few people in the US who do there is a general uprising.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
But we cannot exclude that the Baathist resistance will never get the momentum required to expand the operations and recruit new fighters.

I think it's just a matter of time until the islamists take over.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


I think it's just a matter of time until the islamists take over.

whats your basis for this - and whats your definition of an islamist?

[HershOstropoler]

Islam as a political ideology.

There are several potential sources: Sunni frustration, Shiites wanting to take over the country, and foreign fanatics drawn by US troops on a silver plate like moths by the light.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Islam as a political ideology.

So if someone says they believe in progressive taxation cause islam believes in charity to the poor, does that make them Islamist - that seems to be much of the approach of the current "islamist" govt in Turkey - a muslim equivalent of Christian Democracy.

Or how about imposition of Sharia law as FAMILY law for muslims only. Thats already the case in most muslim majority countries, and is the case in Israel as well - is Israel Islamist?

No, the real concern is a either an imposition of Sharia law in a wide variety of normally secular areas, or the establishment, as in Iran, of a formal role in govt for the religious hierarchy - neither of which is very likely.

There are several potential sources: Sunni frustration, Shiites wanting to take over the country, and foreign fanatics drawn by US troops on a silver plate like moths by the light.

the shiites as a group will run the country, effectively, since they are the majority. However many Shiites are secular. And many of the Shiites who are not have seen the Iranian model and dont like it - including apparently the most respected Shiite cleric in the country, ayatollah Sistani. And even some of those who like it in theory realize the friction it would mean with the Sunnis and so will not push for it.

As for frustrated Sunni arabs, there arent enough of them to push this through.

And the foreigners will just get themselves killed.

[JohnT]

In which JohnT diverges rather wildly from the topic.

So the only thing people follow is the on undeniable metric, combat deaths. But in doing so they probably fall into the McNamara fallacy of over focusing on what is most easily measured - surely something we should have learned about from Viet Nam.

I have been reading about the career of that man (Robert McNamara), and your "McNamara fallacy" is as succinct a description of everything that man did wrong in his career as anything I've read.

Reminds me of the time when he was at Ford. One Monday he brought in a set of figures that he had doodled while sitting in church. These numbers represented a new car that McNamara thought Ford should build, figures that included the weight, price, length, weight, profitability, etc of the car. When he showed the piece of paper to the head of design (name unknown, though I can look it up if you care) and said that this should be Fords newest model, the man looked at him and said:

"But Bob. There's nothing here that tells us what type of car to build."
"How do you mean?"
"Well, is this a sedan, is it a hot rod for the teens, is it a pickup truck, what? Who are you selling this to?"
"Oh. I can see why that would be important."



Poor Bob. America's most successful failure, other than in the selling of Bob McNamara.