Iraq: Insurgency or Patriotism?

Kaiser_Sma

nacho libre wrote:

this comes across as the "white man's burden" justification of colonialism cleverly wrapped in altruistic rhetoric.

Well as flattering as it is to be compared to Rudyard Kipling, i don't think thats what i meant. I can see how you may find that comparison, but i'm not a colonialist, i'm not trying to promote an american empire, i'm trying to argue a situation as it is now with out tying it to the causes of the war or the cancerous notion of nationalisim. I'm not saying these aren't entirely unimportant, but rationally if an end to the occupation is desired then one of either 2 conditions must happen, either the americans war weariness escalates to the extent that they withdraw or alternativly militant activity and general security decreases to a level where the iraqi security forces or what ever governemnt authority can cope. Personally i think it would be better for the americans to hang around for a while, historically this has been advantagous to occupied nations and has expediated their recovery.
The alternative would more then likley end up in a civil war and even if it resolves its self quickly, it is unlikly that a moderate and democratic leader will be installed. With out some sort of intervention i do not think the collective will of the people will be satisfied, just a marginal authoritarian group with a bit of force. Then we'll be right back to square one.

Voipjunkie

Collie D wrote:

I agree that people have the right to defend their homeland but there is a difference between taking on an invading army (real or imagined - I won't go into that debate) and killing your countrymen at the local market

I think that people should not tar all resistance in Iraq with the one brush.

They are not all involved in that type of activity and the only people who really benefit from those kind of actions are the occupying forces as it allows them to portray themselves as a defacto peace keeping force needed to keep the uncivilised warring factions apart. The glaring truth that these things were not happening before they arrived is lost.

Zombrex

FYI wrote:

What logical gymnastics did you have to perform to come up with that analogy?

Was Iraq occupied by a foreign invading force prior to the coalition's illegal invasion?

No, it was occupied by a oppressive dictator. Whats the difference?

FYI wrote:

The group then proceeds to give very specific and radical recommendations as to what the United States should do to secure those reserves. If the proposals are followed, Iraq's national oil industry will be commercialized and opened to foreign firms.

That is nice, and it might well have been the reason the US invaded, but that isn't the reason the insurgency in Iraq is blowing up car bombs in market squares. As I said, it is a civil war. Even the US and UK generals agree, despite the fact that such an agreement is very damaging publically for both governments.

It is a civil war. All the anti-American down with globalisation rants ain't going to change that fact. Such naivety about the reality of Iraq (just get the Americans out everything will be fine) is what made Bush and Chaney think they would be greeted as liberators in the first place (just get Saddam out everything will be fine) :rolleyes:

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

No, it was occupied by a oppressive dictator. Whats the difference?

BUt he was their oppressive dictator. Not some western plot to take control of their country and sell it to some foreigners... again. Its a pretty old story in the M.East. The Western Nations have a long history in coming into the region, and meddling with the nations there.

Many Irish people still rant about English actions after 600 years. Is it any wonder that many Arabs have the same feelings about western inflence in the region, especially direct action in the form of US/UK troops?

It is a civil war. All the anti-American down with globalisation rants ain't going to change that fact. Such naivety about the reality of Iraq (just get the Americans out everything will be fine) is what made Bush and Chaney think they would be greeted as liberators in the first place (just get Saddam out everything will be fine) :rolleyes:

Can't it both? I can't see why it just has to be a civil war? Afterall, there are alot of influences and ambitions in Iraq at the moment, all with their own agenda's. For some it will be the civil war that you describe. For others its the ability to directly attack Western troops, and a chance to remove western influence from the region. And for others, just for the chance to get revenge on everyone.... its a mess, and I doubt there's any single reason for the continuing conflict.

nacho libre

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

Well as flattering as it is to be compared to Rudyard Kipling, i don't think thats what i meant. I can see how you may find that comparison, but i'm not a colonialist, i'm not trying to promote an american empire, i'm trying to argue a situation as it is now with out tying it to the causes of the war or the cancerous notion of nationalisim. I'm not saying these aren't entirely unimportant, but rationally if an end to the occupation is desired then one of either 2 conditions must happen, either the americans war weariness escalates to the extent that they withdraw or alternativly militant activity and general security decreases to a level where the iraqi security forces or what ever governemnt authority can cope. Personally i think it would be better for the americans to hang around for a while, historically this has been advantagous to occupied nations and has expediated their recovery.
The alternative would more then likley end up in a civil war and even if it resolves its self quickly, it is unlikly that a moderate and democratic leader will be installed. With out some sort of intervention i do not think the collective will of the people will be satisfied, just a marginal authoritarian group with a bit of force. Then we'll be right back to square one.

Yes. I realised that after your initial exchange with FYI. Sorry.

FYI

Via...Lenin's Tomb

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/03/latest-iraqi-resistance-stats.html

"Although most attacks continue to be directed against coalition forces, Iraqi civilians suffer the vast majority of the casualties,'' the report said.

The quarterly report - Stability and Security in Iraq - did not reflect security conditions since the start of the year when the United States increased the number of troops in Baghdad to try break a spiral of sectarian violence.

Echoing a recent US intelligence estimate, it said the term "civil war'' did not capture the complexity of the conflict, which included "extensive'' sectarian violence but also attacks on coalition forces and criminality.

"Some elements of the situation in Iraq are properly descriptive of a 'civil war,' including the hardening of ethno-sectarian and politically motivated violence, and population displacements,'' it said.

"Illegally armed groups are engaged in a self-sustaining cycle of sectarian and politically motivated violence, using tactics that include indiscriminate bombing, murder and indirect fire to intimidate people, and stoke sectarian violence,'' it said.

FYI

Here is the latest stats (supplied by none other than the United States Government Accountability Office [commonly called the investigative arm of Congress or the congressional watchdog, is independent and nonpartisan http://www.gao.gov/about/what.html] for those that are distrustful of any information that appears to paint the Iraqi resistance as just that, a resistance):

Guerilla attacks in Iraq since 2003 through April 2007 via Juan Cole:

http://www.juancole.com/2007/05/chart-of-enemy-attacks-in-iraq-here-is.html

and the original document:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07677.pdf

Note the proportion of attacks on coalition forces as opposed to Iraqi civilians, it is quite telling!

Manic Moran

Ratio of civilian attacks to military appears to be increasing over time. You also have the issue that the number of attacks bears no correlation to the standard of attack: If someone empties a single AK magazine at a US tank, it'll be reported and recorded even if every round misses: It's unlikely that many such events will be recorded against civilians if there is no military present to take note, unless the attack is successful.

Plus you have the perception problem. This isn't a fight over body counts or attack counts, it's a fight over perception and belief. As long as there is the high body count of civilians, you have two main problems: Firstly there's the perception amongst the various ethnic groups that there is a large ethnic fight going on, so they're less inclined to want to work together: The fact that only a quarter of attacks are against civilians is irrelevant to them when it's civilians (and thus their 'constituents') which are hitting body counts in the dozens per day.
Secondly, there's the related issue of need for troops to counter this: The latest troop increases this spring have not been precipitated by the number of attacks on coalition forces: As the graph shows, they've been relatively consistent, since last summer. They were sent because over the last year, the headlines have emphasising the civilian casualties. Which brings us back to point #1: As long as the various population groups believe that there is no unity (caused by the perception of inter-ethnic fighting), there will be little success at an acceptably strong central government.

In other words counting the number of attacks against whoever is pretty much pointless, what's important is the perceptions of the people who will be allowing the country to be run.

NTM

Liam Byrne

El Stuntman wrote:

interesting debate coming about the use and misuse of language in wartime

Not just in wartime....think "Saddam Hussein has WMDs"

While I'm 100% anti-war in this case (have been since day one, because of the lies), I have to be objective and say that if these guys were merely blowing the crap out of the US/UK soldiers, they'd be well within their rights in targetting the invaders, but that's not the case, so a lot of the violence is indeed a sectarian civil war..

So how to label them ? Don't know....they're defending their patch, but they're also trying to score points against their fellow Iraqis who happen to be of a different persuasion.

As for the Bush invading Ireland comparison.....it'll never happen. We don't have any oil.

jonny72

Liam Byrne wrote:

So how to label them ? Don't know....they're defending their patch, but they're also trying to score points against their fellow Iraqis who happen to be of a different persuasion.

There is no 'label', because there are many different groups. Al Qaeda only needs a very small trickle of foreign fighters coming in to do ALOT of damage. There are various Sunni groups, ranging from purely anti US forces, to anti Al Qaeda (recently) to anti Shiite and so on.

The most damaging has been Al Qaeda and the use of foreign fighters as suicide bombers on soft targets, civilians and mosques (which provoked alot of the sectarian strife and civil war).

FYI

Manic Moran wrote:

Ratio of civilian attacks to military appears to be increasing over time.

That's incorrect, the ratio appears to remain pretty constant over the time frame, although the term 'military' has now morphed to include the Iraqi army/police force, who are seen as collaborators

The rest of your post appears to be just further attempts to dismiss the findings. The reality is that in contradiction to current mythology the Iraqi insurgency is in fact predominantly a resistance. Those fighters that either a) attack civilians b) inadvertently kill or injure civilians are in the minority, based on these and past figures. The reason for the disparity in terms of civilians killed is obvious.

Manic Moran

The reality is that in contradiction to current mythology the Iraqi insurgency is in fact predominantly a resistance. Those fighters that either a) attack civilians b) inadvertently kill or injure civilians are in the minority, based on these and past figures.

So what? It's civilians that are going to have to live in the country when the Coalition leaves. Ratios of attacks (Despite our disagreement over them) are unimportant, absolute numbers are.

As I expounded above: The 'Troop surge' in the earlier part of this year was not caused by any great change in the attacks on military targets: As the graph shows, the level has been fairly constant since Sept of last year.It was precipitated by the repeat carnage in the civilian environment. And frankly, the best way to not be attacked is to not be there in the first place. So why are the troops still being deployed? However, as an aside:

That's incorrect, the ratio appears to remain pretty constant over the time frame

Perhaps we're not looking at the same graph. The one I'm looking at on Page 34 has, in Jan06 (The month before the Samarra Mosque Bombing which set off the current internecine strife), by eyeball, about 1,700 Coalition attacks, 200 civilian attacks, and 400 Iraqi military. Compare to the last one on the chart, APR07, which at a rough guess seems to be 2,600 Coalition, 900 civilian, and 1000 Iraqi military. My mental arithmetic places this as an increase in the proportions of reported attacks on Iraqis in general, and civilians when taken in isolation. Before then, the 'civilian' part of the bars are almost negligible

In any event, the issue of attacks in Iraq on coalition troops is, to practical purposes to the average Iraqi, irrelevant. That will fall to 'zero' once all coalition troops are withdrawn. The internecine strife, on the other hand, will not, until one of three things happens.
1) One side wins, and kills off the other.
2) The Iraqi central government regains control, on its own.
3) Both sides get bored and stop of their own accord.

Until one of those three events happens, the limiting factor is the presence of external forces. If people want to try to blow up Coalition troops, then so be it. Occupational hazard. The important question is if the attackers are trying to blow up Iraqis. As long as they are, then the long-term independent survival prospects for an Iraqi government are slim, and in the last year or so of that graph, that number of Iraqi-on-Iraqi attacks has shot up. If the attack ratio were 100% against Coalition forces, that would be a good thing.

NTM

RedPlanet

Wikipedia has an article on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgent
"An insurgency, or insurrection, is an armed uprising, or revolt against an established civil or political authority. Persons engaging in insurgency are called insurgents, and typically engage in regular or guerrilla combat against the armed forces of the established regime, or conduct sabotage and harassment in the land in order to undermine the government's position as leader."

On that basis i would say the Iraqis fighting in Iraq are not Insurgents because since the american's toppled the Saddam Hussein government there has been no real established civil or political authority.
I mean lets face it, if the Taliban were not the government of Afghanistan (pre 911) despite that they controlled at least 95% of the territory, then there's no way the current USA installed "Iraqi government" or al-Maliki's government or whatever you want to call it, can be realistically considered to have established civil or political authority over that country when they can't even control events on the ground in Bagdad itself.

And MM:

.. The internecine strife, on the other hand, will not, until one of three things happens.
1) One side wins, and kills off the other.
2) The Iraqi central government regains control, on its own.
3) Both sides get bored and stop of their own accord.

Those are certainly not the only options.
For example the US could withdraw and appeal to the Arab League to step in, and give all the financial assistance that Iraq and her neighbours need, to sort the mess out. The US could engage with Iran... all things that are just politically unpalatable for the US. That's why they'd rather let Iraqis die and just blame them rather than take responsibility for causing the whole mess.

FYI

From the Irish Times today. Michael Jansen, in 'Iraq measures disputed by opposition' wrote: "Prospects for a reduction of violence are poor. Pentagon statistics show there are only 135 foreign detainees out of 19,000 Iraqis in custody, revealing that the overwhelming number of insurgents are Iraqi nationalists fighting for liberation."

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2007/0723/1184965208463.html

eoin5

Theres a marxist insurgent group now:

http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/2790/Iraqi_Marxist_Insurgent_Group_Declared

Whats next!

Also Namoi Klein did a good talk on the whole situation and explains how the businesses are able to make money in the wartorn unstable region at the expense of both the iraqi nation and the american taxpayer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk-qBY-TiZg
Goes on for quite a bit, but she has a good sense of humour so its not gonna put you to sleep

clonycavanman

Free elections were not held in Iraq. The Baath Party (a non-sectarian party which has the most coherent critique of foreign rule) was not permitted to take part.
The Al-Maliki government is not an independant 'Government of Iraq' but a dependant government, dependant upon the violence of foreign forces.
When in a tight spot, occupying and colonial forces long for, dream of, bend all their craft towards, deploy their covert and secret forces to the end of, employ all the wiles and cultural sensitivities of their intelligence organisations to stoke .... a civil war.