More Iraqis supporting resistance, CIA report says

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/politics/7238786.htm

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - A new, top-secret CIA report from Iraq warns that growing numbers of Iraqis are concluding that the U.S.-led coalition can be defeated and are supporting the resistance.

The report paints a bleak picture of the political and security situation in Iraq and cautions that the U.S.-led drive to rebuild the country as a democracy could collapse unless corrective actions are taken immediately.

L. Paul Bremer, head of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, who arrived unexpectedly in Washington for strategy sessions on Tuesday, essentially endorsed the CIA's findings, said a senior administration official.

The report's bleak tone and Bremer's private endorsement differ sharply with the upbeat public assessments that President Bush, his chief aides and Bremer are giving as part of an aggressive publicity campaign aimed at countering rising anxieties at home over increasing U.S. casualties in Iraq.

more

[BadGimp]

1. [sound of Fit hitting the Shan]

eom

[Cocoa]

2. this is good news

the Iraqis that are joining the resistance are the weak ones we don't want in our New Iraq. It's better to find out now who's really committed to democracy. /sarcasm.

[54anickel]

3. Dah, Isn't that what most here at DU have been saying?

But what was that Georgie was saying at the Heritage Foundation today, mostly foreign "jihadist"?

[mw]

4. What??!!!

Who do these Iraqis think they are, trying to tell us how to run their country?!

"Mow them down" I say! That'll teach them!

[Beetwasher]

5. Just More Progress

You see, this means we're winning because the Iraqi's are getting so desperate because we're bringing them democracy that they're all joining the resistance.

[mw]

6. True. Under Hussien, they weren't free to resist. That's progress!

It's the feel good story of the year, watching democracy flourish in Iraq.

Under Hussien, Iraqis COULDN"T kill and maim Americans. Now they are free to do so.

[54anickel]

8. I'm smiling at your 1st line, crying at the 2nd.....

You are bringing out the manic-depressive in me.:freak:

[Spazito]

7. And it seems the way the Bush cabal has answered this is to...

bomb the hell out of them, threaten them with the "stop or else" scenario, yeah, that will do it, geez!

[mhr]

9. Seems Our Own 1776 Moment Was A David And Goliath Story

One wonders who will win this contest?

[NNN0LHI]

11. The question is not if we can win, because we can win

The question is are we willing to do whatever it takes to win? If we are willing to do that then we will make Saddam look like a pretty nice fellow before this is all over with.

Don

[0007]

13. Doesn't sound good!

If this report is accurate we're in for a rough ride folks.

"Some senior policymakers have complained of being frustrated in their efforts to provide Bush with analyses of the situation in Iraq that are more somber than the optimistic views of Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and other hardliners."

and this ......."It also raised the concern that majority Shiite Muslims could begin joining minority Sunnis in turning against the occupation.

Such a development would almost certainly doom the Bush administration's chances of succeeding in Iraq.



Oh shit!!

[mhr]

22. I Am Sure The British Shared The Same Sentiment

But things did not turn out as planned.

A guerrilla resistance is hard to fight without alienating most of the population.

One speculates that we will run out of money and then willpower long before the fight is gone from Iraqis.

[Eloriel]

27. So true, mhr -- here's another take on the same thought

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/02/facing_the_truth_about_iraq/

Facing the truth about Iraq
By James Carroll, 9/2/2003

THE WAR IS LOST. By most measures of what the Bush administration forecast for its adventure in Iraq, it is already a failure.

snip

he question for Americans is, Now what? Democrats and Republicans alike want to send in more US soldiers. Some voices are raised in the hope that the occupation can be more fully "internationalized," which remains unlikely while Washington retains absolute control. But those who would rush belligerent reinforcements to Iraq are making the age-old mistake.

When brutal force generates resistance, the first impulse is to increase force levels. But, as the history of conflicts like this shows, that will result only in increased resistance. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has rejected the option of more troops for now, but, in the name of force-protection, the pressures for escalation will build as US casualties mount. The present heartbreak of one or two GI deaths a day will seem benign when suicide bombers, mortar shells, or even heavier missile fire find their ways into barracks and mess halls.

Either reinforcements will be sent to the occupation, or present forces will loosen the restraints with which they reply to provocation. Both responses will generate more bloodshed and only postpone the day when the United States must face the truth of its situation.

snip

Sooner or later, the United States must admit that it has made a terrible mistake in Iraq, and it must move quickly to undo it. That means the United States must yield not only command of the occupation force, but participation in it. The United States must renounce any claim to power or even influence over Iraq, including Iraqi oil. The United States must accept the humiliation that would surely accompany its being replaced in Iraq by the very nations it denigrated in the build-up to the war.

-- more--

And it's worth remembering, I think, that historically, guerilla insurgencies have not be defeated except via genocide.

Eloriel

[DivinBreuvage]

23. How?

With all due respect, NNN0LHI, I've heard this argument from several sources and I still don't buy it. Does anyone really think the US can be more brutal and repressive than the Nazis in Eastern Europe or Napoleon in Spain? Yet it didn't work for them either. I think it might be a different story if you're applying all that force within your own territory, but not when you insert your handful of troops into a populous foreign land whose combattants have access to so many nasty weapons, so many lines of supply, the sympathies of the population, a real reason to fight, and the willingness to keep dying until they bleed you to death with a thousand tiny cuts, or whatever the saying is.

Of course one thing the Nazis and Napoleon didn't have was that magical wonder weapon that kills every living thing within the charmed circle of its range and then starts burning others to death with varying degrees of slowness. But I'm still not sure that even that would guarantee a stable US presence in Iraq for very long. Granted, the Iraqis wouldn't be causing trouble any more, but I'm not sure how the rest of the planet would respond to it.

Françoise

[NNN0LHI]

32. You asked a question Françoise, and then you went on...

...to answer it yourself. Not sure what else to add to your answer?

Don

[reprobate]

33. Actually, it was the french who won in 1776.

Without the french fleet and troops they brought with them, their defeat of the british fleet at yorktown(?), we would have lost the war and still be a colony of england.

That's why I get so angry with the anti-french sentiment we've seen. Americans have no sense of history, which could be why we keep repeating the same mistakes.

[alcuno]

10. Some nut was on Moneyline tonight advocating turning off the power

in cities such as Fallujah in order to get their cooperation. That is EXACTLY what Saddam did to the people in southern Iraq. People want us to adopt HIS tactics?

"We're going to liberate those poeple if we have to kill every last one of them."

[IndianaGreen]

14. Turning off the power is just an annoyance to Iraqis

If someone were to do the same to America's power grid, you will have mass panic. Turning off the power in the US will be more effective, and will get the message across, than any terrorist attack on people.

[HighNoonMeetUp]

12. They really miss Saddam

I guess they have the right to have Saddam back if they want him.

[NNN0LHI]

15. What are you talking about?

We liberated them. They thanked us for doing so. And then they asked us to leave. Now we won't leave. Whos fault is that? The Iraqis?

Don

[HighNoonMeetUp]

17. Who is "they"?

Which "they" asked us to leave? Was there a vote? A poll?

[Jacobin]

19. Oh. I guess the 30 attacks a day are their way of

throwing flowers.

Motive for Invasion Is Focus of Doubts

By Walter Pincus

More than half of Baghdad's residents said they did not believe the United States would allow the Iraqi people to fashion their political future without the direct influence of Washington, according to a Gallup poll.

With the Bush administration holding consultations on the future of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, recent analyses of the poll data, which were gathered three months ago, highlight the roots within that city's populace of many of the concerns the U.S.-led coalition now faces there.

Only 5 percent of those polled said they believed the United States invaded Iraq "to assist the Iraqi people," and only 1 percent believed it was to establish democracy there.

(snip)

Forty-three percent of the respondents said they believed that U.S. and British forces invaded in March primarily "to rob Iraq's oil." While 37 percent believed the United States acted to get rid of the Hussein regime, only 5 percent thought it did so "to assist the Iraq people," the poll found.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27979-2003Nov11.html

[NNN0LHI]

20. They is the Iraqis who don't see nothing when our soldiers are dying...

...right in front of their eyes. They are the Iraqis with the guns and bombs who are killing our soldiers. That is who they is.

Don

[Beetwasher]

26. That's just plain stupid. Which "they" asked us to invade?

That's the question. How ignorant...

[NickB79]

24. Nothing to do with Saddam

The majority of the Iraqi people are happy that Saddam is gone. They are NOT fighting us to get Saddam back in power. They are fighting us to get the chance to elect a new leader or leaders by themselves. That is the ultimate piece of freedom, to elect who you want unhindered by the influences of other nations. The Iraqi people are not children that need to be led around by the hand and told what to do. Their civilization is thousands of years older than that of Europe or the US, so they know how to take care of themselves.

[IndianaGreen]

16. What is Bush going to do in Iraq? A Vietnamese style hamlet program?

Such a campaign, however, could cause more civilian casualties and drive more Iraqis to the side of the insurgents.

We should be bringing the troops home, not escalating the war!

[PurityOfEssence]

18. Considering his awareness of history and reality

it'll probably sound like a jolly idea. We've passed through Idiotburg and are well within the suburbs of Stammerville.

Ah, the holidays: throw another slog on the fire. Some more of the kids will be back for Christmas; do you suppose we charge for the boxes?

[peterh]

21. Didn’t the Sun Herald or the CIA get the memo…

There aren’t any stinkin’ resistance…..just the occasional nuisance…a gorilla here, an insurgent there….just your garden variety nuisance….:eyes:

[TahitiNut]

25. kick

[54anickel]

28. rchsod posted this interesting link in another thread

Link to Americans sow seeds of hatred:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1080989,00.html

Discussion thread here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=214619#214766

[9215]

29. Strange.....very strange

It is almost as if the part of the CIA that has integrity is looking for a leader. They are doing their job, but have no one to present their info to. Weird as hell. The Press is the only place that their findings can be used in a constructive way: a haphazard attempt to inform the public.

What a royal shithouse mess!

It must be hell being in that "branch" of the CIA now, knowing you are diametrically opposed to Bush's "faith based" foreign policy. I really feel sorry for these people who are doing their jobs and fighting back in the best way they can. They are very courageous people, real heroes.

If an accurate history of what happened in these dark times is ever written there needs to be a chapter on these people who fought back at great risk to themselves, and others who have died trying to get the word out on the corruptions of the Empire.

[SOS]

30. In the 20th century

whenever a sovereign nation attacked another sovereign nation
the attacker lost. Every single anti-colonial movement succeeded. The US now faces what the USSR faced in Afghanistan from 1979-1989. Perhaps Bush 41 shouldn't have armed bin Laden and Hussein after all.

[teryang]

31. That is the basic truth that no one publicly discusses

Kudos for your observation which apparently none of the current regime are aware of. Yet I don't believe that. Here is what I posted on the related locked thread:

<Nation's manipulators and dreamers of empire to distract the public from 2000 coup d'etat and rape of the republic, acknowlege that nineteenth century colonialism can't succeed in the 21st Century.>