Saddamists and criminals who cling to the spectre of Saddam's return are likely fueling this resistance. Oh, and Islamic fundamentalists, foreign Arab fighters and Iraqi nationalists, as well.
"It was predictable," said Iraqi political scientist Saad al-Jawwad [in the Guardian.] "To any man or any woman or anybody who's living in despair what could he do? He has nothing left but to carry arms and defy the people who are here occupying his country and doing nothing for him or his family. Where is democracy? Nonexistent. Where is stability? Nonexistent. Where's electricity? Where's water?"
Meanwhile, SecDef Donald Rumsfeld denied the U.S. was facing a guerilla insurgency. "I don't know that I would use the word," he said, when asked if the occupation was becoming a guerrilla conflict. He noted that the attacks consisted of 10-20 men, with no large formations involved.
Uh, aren't small, disorganized cadres of insurgents, making hit-and-run harassment attacks kind of the definition of guerrilla warfare? As Stratfor points out:The more concentrated the force and the more centrally commanded, the easier it is to defeat. Successful guerrilla movements are inherently "disorganized" -- if by organization, one means a command structure that is vulnerable to attack. They certainly don't aggregate into large units and rarely need to coordinate attacks. It is the very lack of coordination that makes them unpredictable and difficult to defend against. They adopt a basic doctrine, such as attacking convoys, pipelines and electrical infrastructure. Then small units carry out these operations on their own initiative.
Blaming the attacks on criminals completely glosses over the fact that the attacks, regardless of who is making them, are inherently political acts; they are attacks on an occupying power. Stratfor points out that if this is indeed the beginning stages of a guerrilla war, regardless of whether Rumsfeld says it is or isn't, it looks like the United States has been ill-prepared to deal with it despite last night's launching of a counter-insurgency operation, dubbed "Sidewinder," aimed at capturing whoever is behind the growing attack on U.S. troops. Already, 60 people have been captured as a show of force. in Washington, officials continue to insist there's no central command to the burgeoning Iraqi intifada, but troops on the ground are convinced it's organized. "Somewhere in Diala province, something happens every night," said Capt. John Wrann [in the Guardian], referring to the province northeast of Baghdad where much of the operation was taking place. "It's got to be a coordinated thing." But, like so many post-war events, Operation Sidewinder has an ad hoc feel to it. Not the operational details, which by nature have to be developed to respond to rapidly changing threats, but the very need for it. One gets the distinct impression that the U.S. never planned at all for the possibility of an insurgency. Rumsfeld seems to be arguing that the lack of a comprehensive military strategy to deal with this isn't a problem if it's criminals and other no-goodniks making trouble, not guerrillas in the midst of American troops. Criminals are a problem for the police and society, not the military -- or so the thinking at the Pentagon goes. (Which is ironic, considering the current blurring of the lines between the criminal and the military justice systems in the United States.) But the bottom line is that Rumsfeld & Co. never planned for a guerrilla war because they listened too much to the Iraqi National Congress, which gave them ridiculously rosy scenarios. I seem to remember a war sold as a "cakewalk" -- at least according to Sharif Ali, a spokesman for the INC, said on Aug. 8, 2002. "All of Iraq has suffered for many years from the oppression of Saddam Hussein's regime, and there is not a single person out there in Iraq that will fight for or defend him, and therefore, we have full expectations that they will turn against Saddam Hussein. And that is one message we are giving the administration," Ali told the National Press Club that day. And not to pull an "I told you so," but, as I wrote back on Jan. 12, 2003,
Instead of a nice, clean occupation that results in the first Arab democracy ... I predict the United States will have years of guerilla insurgency from nationalistic Iraqis (some of the fiercest nationalism in the Arab world), the dirty job of suppressing Kurdish and Shi'ite independence movements and Sunni power grabs, the problem of al Qai'da slipping across the borders (with the help of Iran and sympathetic Saudis) into the country to strike at American troops and meddling in Iraq's internal affairs by Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Russia. And don't forget the resentment in the region that will occur when the United States begins exploiting the Iraqi oil fields for its own purposes.
The reality on the ground doesn't gibe with Rumsfeld's beliefs, and Stratfor sums it up thusly: "Rumsfeld and U.S. intelligence did not expect to be facing a guerrilla war following the fall of Baghdad, and there are no coherent plans in place for fighting one. Therefore, there is no guerrilla war." And if Rumsfeld truly believes this -- and there is a precedent for Rumsfeld ignoring facts that don't fit with what he believes -- Stratfor worries that the guerillas have a massive advantage and that Rumsfeld is in fact buying time while he works on Plan B, whatever that is. Concerning WMD -- Remember Those? All this focus on the Iraqi intifada has caused the Weapons of Mass Destruction, the raison de guerre, to fade. No one, it seems, in the United States particularly cares that they've not been found, and any scrap of evidence is increasingly lept upon with breathless hype that starts to sound more than a little desperate. The materials mentioned in the story found date from the before the 1991 Gulf War, when the Americans knew Saddam was working on nuclear weapons. The scientist who buried the barrel, Mahdi Shukur Obeidi, sat on this stuff for 12 years and never got the call to start up the ol' uranium enrichment program. Why not, if Saddam were intent on bringing the civilized world to its knees and dominating the Gulf? Before this war, I was convinced that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction -- not nukes, but likely biological and chemical arms. After all, he had them before, and used them against the Iranians and the Kurds in 1984-1988 (along with the compliance if not the blessings of the West.) And he had plenty of opportunity to develop them, with the United Nations weapons inspectors out of the country since 1998. So I thought there was something there. But I didn't think he had them in any quantity that rendered him an existential threat to the United States, nor did I think he would cooperate with Al Qa'ida. I didn't think the threat from iraq rose to a level that required a war, and I didn't trust the Bush administration to follow through with an enlightened "liberation." Well, as it turns out, people who thought this way have been proven catastrophically correct, with one exception: It looks like there were no weapons of mass destruction at all. Some evidence may still be found, of course, but it is increasingly obvious that any program to be uncovered was nowhere near the level of development the White House said it was. Can anyone of reasonably sound mind argue to me that weapons so well hidden or programs in a state of such abeyance could be an imminent threat to the United States? So if there were no weapons, why didn't the Iraqis say so and avoid an extremely unpleasant war, as former chief weapons inspector Hans Blix once mused? Well, actually, they did. All throughout the fall and winter's diplomatic cage death match the Iraqis claimed they had nothing. And look what it got them: invaded. War supporters usually say now that happy, liberated Iraqis were the reason for the war and that the WMD don't matter. To which I reply: Stop changing the damn subject. There are obviously a fair number of Iraqis neither happy nor particularly liberated, so those post-war rationalization don't hold much water. So if there are no weapons of mass destruction and Iraqis increasingly nostalgic for the "good ol' days" of security, surveillance and secularism are killing Americans troops, why are we in Iraq?
“It looks like there were no weapons of mass destruction at all.”
“Can anyone of reasonably sound mind argue to me that weapons so well hidden… could be an imminent threat to the United States?”
Well, in my horriblest of nightmares I envision them hidden OUTSIDE of Iraq. Now let’s see, if you had WMDs and you had 10 years to do it, where would you put them in order to inflict the most damage to your sworn enemies?
But I hope this is just a nightmare and there are no Iraqi WMDs anywhere on the globe. I also hope there are enough people to put Bush out of business, come next election. This is a catastrophe he his ilk have gotten us into. Isn’t history plain enough when it teaches that war causes problems, not solutions? -tw
I am still in shock that the same Americans who cheered on the rush to impeach a former president for lying about a sex act are still making excuses for this malevolent underachiever in the White House. Bush’s pocket minions and puppetmasters have gotten us into easily the worst position the U.S. has ever seen, both domestically and worldwide.
You can bet on this: if/when the next major terrorist attack occurs on U.S. soil, Dubya will paint another Texas oil-boy attempt at earnestness on his face, and point the finger at everybody else whilst garnering yet more power and money to fight his and his friends’ wars. And instead of an outpouring of support and sympathy from the rest of the world, we will see all of their fingers pointing directly at us.
Now, now, Chris. Daniel Kay has promised us that weapons of mass destruction will be found, and I’m sure he’ll do whatever it takes. Give Operation Rockingham a chance to unload those crates.
Mr. Woods is apt to be disappointed in the fulfillment of his nightmares. Both chemical and biological weapons have stringently limited shelf lives, especially if manufactured by means as crude those available to Saddam Hussein’s regime.
The only real concern was the nuclear waste at Al Tuwaitha, with which the Bush regime was so cavalier. But that seems to have poisoned the local populace rather than having been removed for more nefarious ends.
One wonders whether Americans want to be frightened.
Regarding the “Iraqi intifada” that may or may not be gaining ground, why has there been so little coverage and analysis of the various Iraqi groups who have taken credit over the past few weeks for attacks against US troops in Iraq?
I can think of three such “groups”: AFP reported that “the Iraqi Resistance Brigades” issued a communique two Wednesdays ago, later picked up by Le Monde, and last week groups calling themselves “the Return” and “Mujahadin of the Victorious Sect” made announcements, first reported by al-Jazeera and then the US press.
The Iraqi Resistance Brigades’ communique was particularly intriguing, regardless of its truth: the “group” claimed to represent all Iraqis and took credit for all attacks on US occupation forces, suggesting that all armed resistance was coordinated; it claimed to draw strength from members of the then disbanded Iraqi army; and it denied all ties to Saddam Hussein.
Whether such a group in fact exists, the communique represents a plausible program for an armed group seeking to expand its operations and parlay piecemeallocal resistance into national politics: claim to speak to all Iraqis who oppose the US occupation, that is speak for Iraq as a nation; claim to draw on the resources and address grievances of specific constituencies; and disown any allegience to Saddam and the Ba’th Party (even if, especially if, your own cell does include Ba’th members).
When and if armed resistance does gain momentum, it will likely be the work of several locally or regionally based groups based on preexisting networks that command the resources—military supplies, soldiers, local support, money, etc.— to conduct a sustained campaign of resistance.
Several observations are relevant here:
1) Such groups could draw on networks based on Ba’th party membership, tribal ties and/or religious institutions. These networks will exploit social and political associations that existed prior to the US invasion, either establsihed by the previous regime (Ba’th party membership), against the regime (Shi’ite religious organizations) or beside the regime (tribal ties).
2) To succeed,such groups will need a strong local base of passive resistance among the Iraqi population, but they will also seek to appeal to specific consistuencies to expand their influence.
3) Regionally based groups needn’t coordinate their efforts under a central command, but as their activities expand, they will begin to interact, coordinate and compete with each other and other political groups in the natinal arena.
What I’m getting at is that armed resistance against foreign occupation may evolve from regional military operations to national politics—and this will be goal of any aspiring guerilla group. Groups will therefore have to appeal to the populace at large, and other groups, by defining themselves and their goals during and beyond the occupation.
Hence the importance of these communiques.
The AP story you linked had US intelligence listing three possible sources of resistance:
1) former Ba’thist cadres, particularly from intelligence or the Fedayeen Saddam, 2)Islamic fundamentalists, including al-Qaeda style foreign Islamist legionnaires, and 3)violent and previously apolitical criminals, especially those Saddam released from jail just before the war.
This rogue’s gallery is reassuring, since it suggests a conspiracy of war criminals, regular criminals and international terrorists, all elements without support from, or appeal to, the IRaqi population. If these “criminal” elements have no popular base, then all that’s needed is strong military police work to find and destroy them.
But we have all sorts of anecdotal evidence that there are plenty of Iraqis who object to the Occupation in theory and practice. Take Salam Pax’s tale of his cabbie who rides around town with a hand grenade in his glove compartment in case he can take a clear shot at a Marine or two, which he happy to discuss with his paying customers. Or yesterday’s NPR interview with Sunni tribesman who say that killing an American solider is the best way for a young man to earn respect. Or listen to talk radio on BBC’s Arabic Service.
A better way to analyze the potential for resistance is not to search for enemies among foreign or criminal elements, but to ask what, if any, native Iraqi groups will have the social and military resources to mount a sustained campaign resistance and appeal to IRaqi society as a whole, as well as consistutencies within it.
The exercise is valuable since it allows Occupation forces to pre-empt resistance groups by making political—as well as military—moves that isolate resistance groups and appeal to the needs and aspirations of Iraqi society at large.
I do not profess to know the details about which group of Iraqi resistors represents which religious or political faction. But, I believe that their existence and actions have been thoroughly predictable. Chris, Warblogs, most readers of this site and most of the people who cared enough to protest the U.S. military action figured out what would happen, and it did. Which leads to the obvious question - “How could Rumsfield and friends be so stupid?” The answer is that they are probably not. They know how to turn on water as well as they know how to drop bombs. Chaos serves their purposes. A well oiled (pun intended) democracy will result in the troops coming home. To Rumsfield and friends, the cost benefit analysis results in a few dead, and 150,000 troops permanently stationed right next to Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. They want the chaos to continue…they’ll keep making up stories to stretch the situation out as long as they can.
at the risk of sounding pious, “those who live by the sword, shall die by the sword”, although in this case, those desirous of living by the sword do their dying by proxy. It’s not fair, nor is it just to expect brave young Americans to die for the failings of politicians.
Interesting idea you’ve hit on there, Diana. I was, just the other day, pondering the possiblity that the neocons shrewdly planned for post-war chaos by not planning for it… having pesky criminal elements to point to is a good reason to strenthen the occupation. And now we have congress starting to holler about getting some international help to keep Iraq under control. Though, no doubt, we can handle the oil fields just fine on our own!
But another intruiging idea that wandered through my head while pondering this was the Israel factor. Wolfowitz has made little attempt at hiding his pro-Israeli attitudes. There was much talk before the war that Israeli revenge and/or removal of the prime threat to Israel in the region was the real reason for the attack. If this was true, it would seem to follow that Israel would be more than happy to have Iraqis suffering and disorganized… indefinitely.
American led security coalition bombs iraqi cities repeatedly in no-fly zones including Basra civilian airport. U.N states this is illegal.
Iraqi infrustructure destroyed in ‘91 and sanctions keep it destroyed.
Now America bitching that infrustructure was’nt kept up to date and will cost billions and heaps of time to repair.
Doctors-sans-frontiers catch troops red-handed planting chemical barrels flown in from states and report this to U.N despite death threats from c.o.
U.S tells U.N to bugger off “we don’t want your help” ; now begs them to return………
Elections held but U.S says no, you can’t have him as your regional leader because he’s a cleric… democracy my arse.
If I was an Iraqi watching Boeing employed staff in rad suits (nbc) cleaning up powdered depleted uranium powder in my village, I’d pick up an ak or rpg as well!
we will kill all the american soldiers in our country ….we will make george and george w fuck eachother and we will make the flames of hell swallow israel and america……..i say i will get bin laden and al-qaeda for they and their fundamentalist wahabi taught version of sunni islam is a threat to our secular and socialist beliefs and therefore to our government ands socialist ba’ath party and pan-arabism with iraq the leader of the arab world!!!!!americans/isrealis will die