In Iraq's insurgency, no rules, just death

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GE13Ak01.html

In the very initial phase of evolution, Iraq's insurgents decided that Iraq would not be governed by the American-appointed government. After the elections of January 30, they also determined that a government elected under the American-written constitution would not govern it. But how are they are going to impose their will? Their decision all along seems to be that one side has to be either eradicated or defeated.

The American side cannot be eradicated, but the insurgents seem to have decided that they will not be defeated, as long as they are willing to die for their cause. One US Marine recently described the battle with insurgents in Ubaidi, 15 miles east of the Syrian border, by observing, "They came here to die. They were willing to stay in place and die with no hope. All they wanted was to take us with them." How do you develop an effective strategy to fight those who follow no rules, except their willingness to die for their cause? No one on the American side seems to have an answer.

The insurgents in Iraq comprise a variety of groups. First and foremost are the Ba'athists and pan-Arabists, including persons of civilian bureaucracy and armed forces under Saddam Hussein. They had careers and retirement plans. They had guaranteed sources of income to support their families. Even in the uncertain political environment of Iraq under a dictator, they did not harbor grave doubts about having a secure means of earning a living, as long as they did not antagonize the wicked regime. Today, almost 90% of them have no job, no income and no future. Thus, they form a majority of the Iraqi insurgency. A large number of army personnel are reportedly well trained in urban warfare. They are eager to destroy the current evolving system, which, from their point of view, is highly illegitimate because it is created by the United States.

Then there are the Sunni Islamists who wish to see their country ruled under the banner of Sunni Islam. There is also the Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda, whose goals of having an Islamist Iraq may not be too much different than that of the Sunni Islamists, like Ansar al-Islam, and its offshoot, Ansar al-Sunnah. They are driven by the jihadi frame of mind. The "super-Infidel" is occupying the land of Islam, according to this perspective, and should be driven out, no matter the cost. In this frame of reference, there is no compromise, just death, either for them, or for their enemy, or for both. Consequently, Iraq has gone beyond a point where it could be described as "hell".

more

[oblivious]

1. OK, this one tries to define the insurgents, but is incomplete.

1. First and foremost are the Ba'athists and pan-Arabists

2. Then there are the Sunni Islamists who wish to see their country ruled under the banner of Sunni Islam.

3. There is also the Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda, whose goals of having an Islamist Iraq may not be too much different than that of the Sunni Islamists, like Ansar al-Islam, and its offshoot, Ansar al-Sunnah. They are driven by the jihadi frame of mind.

But he stops there. Nothing about Shiites, Kurds, Turkmen just because they are comparatively quiet at the moment.

So I looked at the writer and I wonder:

Ehsan Ahrari is an independent strategic analyst based in Alexandria, VA

I prefer Pepe Escobar's analysis.

[NNN0LHI]

2. For the many here who say they believe the "we broke it, we own it" line...

...of crappolla I need to tell you that the Iraqis are only getting better and better at what they do. While the US rotates soldiers into and out of Iraq the Iraqis never leave. Their learning curve improves with each passing day. That is not the case for our soldiers. All our soldiers want to do is get back home in one piece. The Iraqis are already home. They are not going anywhere.

Win? What is winning. That is the question some of you had better begin asking yourself. There will not be any winning for the US in Iraq. Anyone thinking otherwise is not dealing with reality. You had better begin thinking more in terms of peace with honor. It won't really be peace with honor. But it sounds better than we got our asses kicked. Don't kill the messenger.

Don

[oblivious]

3. Yes, it's impossible to win. Impossible.

If they can't take a few villages in a major operation with F18's gunships, etc. all is lost.

[DrDebug]

8. Or if they can't control 6 miles of highway

The most important route in the city and they couldn't control its security. This is wide, clear highway with lots of space on either side, no same level crossings and we now transport everything by helicopter

[oblivious]

4. One other thing I never got about the "we broke it, we own it" BS.

If the US were there to prevent civil war, it would have to stay forever. Will the Kurds give up their belief that Kirkuk is theirs in 5 years? Will the Sunni Arabs do the same in 5 years? Will the Sunnis accept Shiite domination in 5 years just because time heals?

If civil war is a prospect today, it would be no less a prospect in 5 years. So it's a bullshit argument.

The US will stay for the oil. Anyone who pretends it's anything else is a fool or a liar.

[NNN0LHI]

5. You nailed it n/t

[radwriter0555]

6. These people are willing to die to defend their nation against americans,

but never raised a hand against that evil, murdering tyrant, Saddam Hussein.

Fascinating.

[NNN0LHI]

7. You must have forgot the 2 uprisings after Gulf War that Hussein put down?

One while Bush1 was president and the other while Clinton was president.

Interesting.

Don