An inexpert look at post war Iraq

[pbeal]

The following is only my opinion and is derived from several history books, pre and post GW2 documents, personal experience, and current events. I dont expect anyone to take it seriously.

The Baath party is rooted in traditional socialist / communist underground / revolutionary structure.
This structure is rooted on the operational cell concept, and party members are trained and expected to observe operational security.
What this means was while the Baath Party was in power it could operate as an effective police state with party members covertly watching the population and when disposed the party could quickly revert to underground status. It also means the party will Blame its prewar leadership for being forced underground they will likely use their deaths as rallying cries but are no longer willing or likely taking direction from the former high level overt leaders. Also at the base of Baath philosophy is nationalism Sadam may have been the head of Iraq but he was by no means Iraq itself.

It also looks like in the run up to the War the Baath party did indeed prepare the party for reverting into an underground resistance force, by stockpiling large stocks of small arms, explosives and money and training its junior members in underground behavior.

I can only assume by how quickly that the attacks on our occupying forces and the sabotage on infrastructure became more organized and effective(something that should have taken years to do from scratch) that there is a fully functional Baath underground is at work. It is also apparent that the cells are being run by several regional or area commanders who are unlikely to be in direct contact with each other. The attacks while organized are not coordinated, and the attacks in different areas are dissimilar enough to point to several planers who are not communicating. When a secure and effective communication net is established the attacks will become even more effective.

Syria who is a Baathist state is likely providing material support and in the future more than likely to provide sanctuary and training. Baath members are more than likely to Infiltrate the new Iraqi police force and the new Iraqi military.

It is also likely that a competing Islamic group will start operating in southern Iraq with support and sanctuary from the Saudis and Iran. The Islamic underground is likely in the first stages of underground orgisation and not established enough to begin attacks on western forces.

Another potential problem will be the Kurds in the north providing support and sanctuary to the underground Kurd movement in Turkey. When this happens(and it will happen) The Turks will strike at the Iraqi Kurds military as well as to start a underground within the Iraqi Turkmen population.

What all this means. Currently the US is treating the ongoing attacks against occupying forces as a small group of diehard dead-enders, any one with a competent grasp of Arab and world history can see that this is just not the case If it continues to Operate like it is we will be quagmired until either all the Iraqi oil is pumped out of the ground or The US reduces its dependence on petroleum products. Iraquization of the conflict will not work because of the basic structure of the Baath party and will result in the same effect that Vietimnzation(sp) worked in Viet Nam.

A solution that could possibly work but one that the current US administration will find unthinkable is to get the UN involved and remove all US and "Collation of the willing" military and commercial involvement out within 3 months. As long as the US is seen as a Player in Iraqi internal affairs peace will be unattainable.

[bemildred]

1. Works for me.

I've been wondering how much of the money we used to bribe
the Republican Guard will wind up financing the resistance.

Who can say?

[skip fox]

2. FINE post . . .

But what do we know factually? I'm not trying to discredit your insight
and knowledge, but what exactly do we know? Have we captured anyone
in the process of attacking and have they been Ba'ath or al-Quaeda? What
does the evidence suggest? I mean, I ain't arguing . . . I'm asking!

[pbeal]

3. very little is known factually

The US isn't telling the public anything. The nature of the information that is being released points to a very different situation than the one the administration is officially telling us.

What is known is the pre GW1 structure of the baath party, the history of other insurrections reaction of Arab nations to western colonialism, the history of the Turk Kurd conflict, and the rise and nature of Islamic fundamentalism. The US administration either is unaware of history or chooses to ignore it as inconvenient fact.

[StandWatie]

4. not Saudi Arabia..

They wouldn't cooperate with Iran on anything, especially helping to bring about a new "heretic republic" like Shia Iran.

[pbeal]

5. they may in an effort to protect the monarchy

Your basically right. But If it looks like Democracy in Iraq threatens to spill over into SA, or the rest of the Arab monarchies in the gulf, they may cooperate with Iran to destabilize Iraq and bring about a regime that is controllable through whabist clerics.

Its also obvious that what the Saudi princes say and what they actually do are different.

[StandWatie]

6. yeah, right..

well don't lay awake at night worrying about Democracy in Iraq.

[pbeal]

7. Oh I wont.

Iraq will be a US protectrate for quite some time.

[EAMcClure]

8. Iraq won't be a US protectorate in a couple years

The U.S. does not have Iraq under control. It is still a war zone, and there are only pockets of soldiers fortifying key regions, and those key regions are under heavy attack.

The U.S. is attempting to bring in more outside soldiers and train inside Iraqis (former intelligence, disaffected Baathists) to take over the urban patrol (read: dangerous) part of the mission while the U.S. fans out and secures more and more of the region.

As we speak, the U.S. military is stuck in about 20 places with nowhere to go. Sitting ducks. The attacks right now are demoralizing, and soon, the psychological aspect of the Iraqi insurgency (homeland defense?) will draw to a conclusion and the actual warfare will begin. Expect targeted explosions on barracks, and the worst case scenario of dam destruction along Tigris and Euphrates.

You can tell that the Iraqi guerilla warfare is psychological in nature by the way the Bush administration is reacting. They are denying the real nature of the enemy and attempting to demoralize the oppositon with their phony murders of Castor and Pollux.

Here are some facts:

The U.S. has captured few, if any, of the original Iraqi leadership.

The U.S. managed to kill or capture a small percentage of the fedayeen and republican guard, the only military wings that matter in Iraq.

Russian has stationed nuclear subs and amphibious personnel carriers in the Indian ocean to conduct "training exercises" with India.

The US military can not last under these circumstances. Once heavy casualties begin to mount, pressure will rise to get out no matter what the consequence. The consequence will be Russian intervention in Basra, the return of the Baathist party to power, and reprisals against any and all Shia and Kurdish "rebels" who actually try to take over and self-govern.

If the US doesn't like this scenario, then there is nuclear war.

Eric

[pbeal]

9. I ment protectorate, as in we will be there forever

There is no way that the US can allow Iraqi oil to be controlled by anyone but the US directly or a Puppet regime indirectly.

I don't think that the insurgency is going to go overt very soon US weapon systems are so effective at open warfare that it would be suicide to attempt. Maybe if the insurgency was supplied with a very cheap man portable antitank system that could take out a M1 at 3500 meters and a advanced cheap manpack AD system that could take out US attack and utility helicopters as well as unmanned surveillance drones. Since these weapon systems don't exist the insurgency is going to remain covert and rely on Mines, IEDs, and small ambushes on us foot patrols as well as killing of members of the new Iraqi puppet government and us sympthisers for some time to come.

If I was a power who had something to gain by the US screwing itself by overextending its military and economy(China, Russia, EU, and every Arab country in the middle east ) I would do my best to make sure that only token support comes in from the UN, and then start pumping money and aid to opposition forces. Turning Iraq into a white elephant for the US.

[EAMcClure]

10. Mark my words

The insurgency will go overt. There won't be open warfare, because air support will take care of that. But the attacks will ramp up, steadily, and the weaponry will improve, steadily. Russia has a distinct interest in Iraq, and has for decades.

Why take out the tanks and helicopter gunships? Those are the most expensive pieces of counter-insurgency equipment... let them run around. It is the soldiers, and their chain of command that are most at risk.

The US will have to face reality once the money well runs dry. The Iraq occupation has ALREADY forced the US treasure into bankruptcy. It is just a matter of when the consequences begin to ripple.

Eric