It seemed rather like nobody was in control.
Mr. Lind agrees:
An article in the Friday, March 29 Washington Post
pointed to the long-expected opening of Phase III of
America?s war with Iraq. Phase I was the jousting
contest, the formal "war" between America?s and
Iraq?s armies that ended with the fall of Baghdad.
Phase II was the War of National Liberation waged
by the Baath Party and fought guerilla-style. Phase
III, which is likely to prove the decisive phase, is true
Fourth Generation war, war waged by a wide variety
of non-state Iraqi and other Islamic forces for
objectives and motives that reach far beyond politics.
---
The article goes on to quote a U.S. intelligence officer
as adding, "There is no single organization that?s
behind all this. It?s far more decentralized than that."
Welcome to Phase III. The remaining Baathists will
of course continue their War of National Liberation,
and Fourth Generation elements have been active
from the outset. But the situation map in the 1st
Armored Division?s headquarters reveals the "tipping
point:" Fourth Generation war is now the dominant
form of war against the Americans in Iraq.
What are the implications of Phase III for America?s
attempts to create a stable, democratic Iraq? It is safe
to say that they are not favorable. First, it means that
the task of recreating a real, functioning Iraqi state -
not just a "government" of Quislings living under
American protection in the Green Zone - has gotten
more difficult. Fourth Generation war represents a
quantum move away from the state compared to
Phase II, where the Baathists were fighting to
recreate a state under their domination. The
fractioning process will continue and accelerate,
creating more and more resistance groups, each with
its own agenda. The defeat of one means nothing in
terms of the defeat of others. There is no center to
strike at, no hinge that collapses the enemy as a
whole, and no way to operationalize the conflict. We
are forced into a war of attrition against an enemy
who outnumbers us and is far better able to take
casualties and still continue the fight.
http://antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=2177