AP: Iraq Insurgency: 20,000+ strong and not Islamist

[Zynx]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20040708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insurgency_2

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Iraq (news - web sites) insurgency is far larger than the 5,000 guerrillas previously thought to be at its core, U.S. military officials say, and it's being led by well-armed Iraqi Sunnis angry at being pushed from power alongside Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

Although U.S. military analysts disagree over the exact size, dozens of regional cells, often led by tribal sheiks and inspired by Sunni Muslim imams, can call upon part-time fighters to boost forces to as high as 20,000 — an estimate reflected in the insurgency's continued strength after U.S. forces killed as many as 4,000 in April alone.

And some insurgents are highly specialized — one Baghdad cell, for instance, has two leaders, one assassin, and two groups of bomb-makers.

[Mari333]

1. Bremer is in a 1000 a night suite sipping brandy

while our kids are over there being killed and wounded.
http://www.bringthemhomenow.com

[goclark]

10. Huum where is Bremer

and where are all of those know it all General that were so pompous?

Who is in charge of our soldiers now?

[MattNC]

2. the rules of guerrilla warfare

would require the multi-national coalition to bolster their force size to well over 200,000 then to effectively fight this many insurgents.

[Spinzonner]

4. And the resulting impression on the Iraqi public

would probably lead to the recruitment of even more insurgents.

There's no end to that approach. It's how we ended up with half-a-million troops in Vietnam.

[TheWesson]

9. Iraq & Vietnam

You can crush an insurgency, as long as you have plenty of force and you are willing to pretty much wade in blood. It's very nasty.

The conquest of the Phillipines by the United States is one example. The Spanish were easier to defeat than the independence movement that followed, but eventually that was crushed too.

I suppose in the Fallujah battle some American decided that they weren't actually willing to cause widespread casualties. Which would mean that their fear was of provoking wider-spread insurgency. Hence, the insurgency *is* nationalistic or at least (in the eyes of that "some American", could be.)

But Iraq is not exactly like Vietnam. If we do not wish to maintain a grip on Iraq (that is, actually permit free elections) then our task is easier. With a legitimate Iraqi government, nationalist sentiment will be as much against as for the insurgency.

(The unfortunate paradox is that American force expressed in favor of any Iraqi government will tend to make it look illegitimate.)

I have no idea if Bush is planning a puppet/stooge Iraqi government, which *would* slide us into another Vietnam. (Allawi is no prize.) I feel pretty confident that Kerry would be smart enough to avoid that.

the wesson

[Nadienne]

12. I, for one, would be surprised

if Bush didn't set up a puppet government in Iraq.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[htuttle]

17. That was then, this is now

The conquest of the Phillipines was before innovations like sub machine guns, RPGs and SAMs were prevalent.

I think that weapons like those have changed the balance of power to the point that if a population does not want to be occupied by a foreign power, it will ultimately be impossible to control, no matter how hard the occupying forces try (or how bloody they are willing to get).

I think that in the future, when the dust is settled and the history books written, the RPG and the SAM may end up being seen as the one most important factors in ending the age of wars of conquest. Remember that guerilla fighters don't need to win. They simply need to not lose.

[TheWesson]

22. technology and terror

Hi!

that's an interesting thought - that technology (cellphones, IED's, RPG's, SAM's) can decentralize warfare and tip the balance of power in favor of the guerilla

but an insurgency still needs popular support (at least in its base region) to survive.

a sufficient level of terror by the occupier will remove this level of popular support (the alternative, more attractive option for the occupier being a government which draws popular support to itself.)

however, my thought on terror is that it has to be quite extreme to remove the will to resist.

any level of terror inflicted short of that level of terror increases the will to resist.

the bombing of civilians, for example, seems to increase the will to resist rather than decrease it. this seems to be true until you get to nuclear weapons.

obviously the US is not insane enough to nuke Fallujah as some Freepers would like, so the only alternative is to co-opt and cooperate ... somehow make "cooperation with the government" psychologically viable ... in other words, have a legitimate, representative government in place!

the wesson

PS Terror inflicted on the occupiers is different - it only has to be intense and prolonged enough to be worse than the consequences of withdrawal - it doesn't have to be worse than not surviving as a nation. In that sense the insurgency has a definite advantage.

[newyawker99]

20. Hi TheWesson!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Mokito]

21. Yup, guerrilla's are like the brooms in Fantasia

Lose one, add two.

[FlemingsGhost]

13. There are no rules to guerilla warfare

That is why we are getting our heads handed to us ... literally, at times.

[pinniped]

3. So what do the numbers of the National Salvation look like?

:eyes:

[Downtown Hound]

5. I'd be willing to bet it's significantly higher

I remember laughing at that pathetic 5,000 estimate. Of course, many Americans believed it. Now we find out it's 20,000. One year from now we'll find out it's 50,000. I have a friend who's a Vietnam Vet that served in the early years of the war. He was told they were fighting 60,000 North Vietnamese. Years later he found out that they were really fighting 600,000 North Vietnamese. Maybe a slight typo, or maybe just more bullshit?

[Aidoneus]

6. the question is flawed

the number of "insurgents", or active fighters, may indeed be a few thousand at any given point. The base of support--from the range of direct, intelligence, material, or just moral--would thus be in the millions. Not every one of those people will be brandishing an AK47 or RPG7 at any given point; on the other hand, any one of them could when the invaders are in their neighborhood. Such would be a better figure at judging the matter, though I hardly expect some official spokesbot to care for nuance.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

7. I'm guessing the number of "insurgents" is closer to 200,000....

...throughout the country of Iraq. Once again, it sounds like military intelligence is trying very hard to minimize what's really happening in Iraq. I remember Gen. Westmoreland stating that the Vietcong had run out of troops...right before the Tet Offensive.

[Barrett808]

15. Last year at this time, CIA estimated as high as 50,000

While Rumsfeld was estimating 5,000.

[MisterP]

8. now they'll say "Baathist Baathist Baathist Baathist"

instead of "Taliban Taliban Taliban Taliban..." (or maybe they won't change their chant--the point of the article's that it's everyday persons combatting an illegal occupation)

[Dhalgren]

11. And the thing that needs to be stressed in this country

is that the invasion IS illegal! Why no one is willing to talk about the fact that this invasion is against international law is beyond me. Remember when the whole world joined together to fight against Saddam when he invaded Kuwait? And remember how every honest, decent country in the world refused to join "Caligula" Bush in this criminal act? This should be harped upon constantly.

[Frangible]

14. Appearently invasions piss people off

Perhaps our exhalted leadership should have seen it coming.

[The_Casual_Observer]

16. I guess that they were able to get a "show of hands" on this

Or some kind of a list. It's only a guess, but the gist of this report was probably delivered via the CIA. Another guess, they really don't have the faintest idea who the "enemy" is, how many there are, or what they are going to do next. Unfortunately, since nobody tells the truth about any of this, only time will tell.

[Ravy]

18. Leaders? Assassins? Bomb makers? That explains it....

Every cell needs a FLORIST! How can they be expected to throw flowers at us if there are no florists in the group!

[FlemingsGhost]

19. Bwahhh-hahahahaha ...

They hate us for our florists.

[AliceWonderland]

23. Interesting read

The rush to characterize various aspects of the War on Terra as a clash of civilizations -- mostly based on religion -- had been laughably superficial. You can drum up more hate and fear with the threat of evil fanatic extremists, however. Complex political/economic forces don't offer sexy soundbites, or make people want to nuke those ragheads and make the desert glow.