Iraq: Insurgency or Patriotism?

Terry

So, the U.S. invades a country, installs a government (fair enough, there was a democratic election) and then calls anyone who disagrees with this government "Insurgents".
I'm sorry, but I just can't stomach this crap.
If Ireland was to be invaded in the morning (yes, pedants, I know it is not going to happen), I wouldn't stand by and watch some foreign power install their will on my country.
Does this make me a patriot or am I an insurgent?
Should the Iraqi people lay down and just say "ok, america. you have beaten us. what do you want us to do next"?, or should they stand up and say "hey, we were quite happy here. you killed twice as many civilians as hussein did. Who do you think you are coming in here telling us how to live our lives and installing another puppet* regime?"

*debatable.

My take is that the so called insuregents are well within their rights to defend their homeland and I would do the same were any country to invade here.

El Stuntman

interesting debate coming about the use and misuse of language in wartime

Do the official American sources (I suppose we are talking US Army spokesmen here) call all of the various combatant forces 'insurgents'?

Or do they differentiate between former Baathists (Iraqi), Al Qaeda jiahdists (foreign), Kurdish peshmerga, criminal bands, tribal armies, messianic doomsday cults, private Shiite militias and Iranian proxies?

it's enough to make your head spin

NeverSayDie

Terry wrote:

So, the U.S. invades a country, installs a government (fair enough, there was a democratic election) and then calls anyone who disagrees with this government "Insurgents".
I'm sorry, but I just can't stomach this crap.
If Ireland was to be invaded in the morning (yes, pedants, I know it is not going to happen), I wouldn't stand by and watch some foreign power install their will on my country.
Does this make me a patriot or am I an insurgent?

That would depend. In your hypothetical scenario, would you be murdering thousands of Irish civilians a year in bombings and shootings? (on say, a Catholic/Protestant divide in that example)
Far as I can see, a lot of the insurgency in Iraq seems to involve low-level sectarian civil war.

El Stuntman wrote:

Do the official American sources (I suppose we are talking US Army spokesmen here) call all of the various combatant forces 'insurgents'?

I think the usual euphemism these days is "Anti-Iraqi forces", convienient bit of PR there.

Gurgle

Terry wrote:

then calls anyone who disagrees with this government "Insurgents".

Well, technically, anyone who fights the people in power is an insurgent.

Calling all insurgents terrorists is maybe a more relevant question.

Judt

I don't think it counts if most of the insurgents aren't actually Iraqi, and if many of the insurgent groups go out of their way to kill Iraqi's and spark internal wars, rather than attacking the foreign oppressors all the time. I don't think too many American soldiers do be out in the Baghdad markets buying some oranges when those multiple car bombs kill 50 people.

sovtek

Judt wrote:

I don't think it counts if most of the insurgents aren't actually Iraqi,

Do you think it "counts" if the vast majority are Iraqi, as is the case here?

and if many of the insurgent groups go out of their way to kill Iraqi's and spark internal wars, rather than attacking the foreign oppressors all the time.

Different people are doing different things for different reasons.
There is evidence and it's quite likely that the US and UK intentionally sparked the civil war.

El Stuntman

sovtek wrote:

Judt wrote:

There is evidence and it's quite likely that the US and UK intentionally sparked the civil war.

source please?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

terrorists can't be patriots? terrorism is a method, not a mindset and to be honest, it's not all that more brutal than dropping 'smart' bombs or cluster bombs on civilian areas. Killing is killing, america has never been so desperate and poor that they have had to resort to the methods of murder that arab insurgents have. if the Un wanted to arm all these terrorist groups with the same level of arms that the Us and Uk army has and give them training and resources to build proper armies or militias we probably wouldn't see any of these suicide bombings and intentional murder of civilian populations to make a point but then we would see far more civilian deaths as a result of 'collateral damage' and the occasional massacre which could then be washed away as a natural, but regretful incident of war.

these insurgents and terrorists are just using what they have to do whatever they can in service to their goals, whatever they may be.. as sovtek said different people are doing different things for different reasons. The main difference between the armies of the west and the insurgencies of the arabic world is that the insurgencies are desperate, and their anger towards western imperialism is being fanned into out and out hatred whereas the west is impassionate, and able to muster large numbers of disposable heroes for their cause.

sovtek

El Stuntman wrote:

sovtek wrote:

source please?

It's been quoted many times before so I'm not bothered to go look for it again.
Basically the SAS were arrested by Iraqi police a few years back and then "rescued" by the British forces from a jail. It included a tank basically knocking the jail down. The Iraqi police claim that they caught them dressed as natives and their vehicle was wired with explosives.
As well Muqta Al Sadr became a big boogey man when his newspaper claimed that the CIA was fomenting civil war to head off the insurgency. When that happened ol Paul had it closed and tried to have Sadr arrested. So much for proving him wrong.

El Stuntman

Mordeth wrote:

terrorists can't be patriots? terrorism is a method, not a mindset and to be honest, it's not all that more brutal than dropping 'smart' bombs or cluster bombs on civilian areas. Killing is killing, america has never been so desperate and poor that they have had to resort to the methods of murder that arab insurgents have. if the Un wanted to arm all these terrorist groups with the same level of arms that the Us and Uk army has and give them training and resources to build proper armies or militias we probably wouldn't see any of these suicide bombings and intentional murder of civilian populations to make a point but then we would see far more civilian deaths as a result of 'collateral damage' and the occasional massacre which could then be washed away as a natural, but regretful incident of war.

I don't agree with this at all. I think both would be worse.

Dying as a shaheed (martyr) in a suicide bombing is considered to be the greatest thing you can possibly do with your life by many young muslim extremists. I don't think equipping them with equivalent technology to Western Armies would change this religiously motivated death wish.
Technological parity didn't stop kamikaze bombers in WW2.

Equally the intentional murder of civilians is religiously motivated - the Sunni extremists see Shiites as apostates, deserving of death under their religious code. This is mandated by Allah (in their eyes).
The Shiite extremists are striking back, hence the civil war extant in large parts of Iraq.

I fear you have misunderstood the nature of the insurgency - it is in no way some kind of 'patriotic' Iraqi movement. In fact there is no such thing as 'Iraq', only a collection of tribes and religious groupings who hate each other even more intensely than they hate the Americans. They just happen to inhabit a patch of land that Western powers decreed to be a place called 'Iraq'.

Religious fanaticism is the main driver of the violence in Iraq, not patriotism (certainly as we Westerners understand it). It is foolish and wrong-headed to try and understand Iraqi motivations through the prism of our Western outlook.

Flame away!

FYI

Judt wrote:

I don't think it counts if most of the insurgents aren't actually Iraqi, and if many of the insurgent groups go out of their way to kill Iraqi's and spark internal wars, rather than attacking the foreign oppressors all the time. I don't think too many American soldiers do be out in the Baghdad markets buying some oranges when those multiple car bombs kill 50 people.

If you want to characterise the insurgency as anything it's best to know who they are principally attacking.

According to the Multinational Force Iraq: 2006 (report), attacks by insurgents are predominantly aimed at coalition forces.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5052138.stm

But since coalition forces are obviously better equipped.

"Although about 80% of insurgent attacks are targeted against coalition forces, the Iraqi population suffers about 80% of all casualties, according to US officials in late 2005."

In reality the insurgents would be more accurately described as counter-insurgents.

Kaiser_Sma

Mordeth wrote:

terrorists can't be patriots? terrorism is a method, not a mindset and to be honest, it's not all that more brutal than dropping 'smart' bombs or cluster bombs on civilian areas. Killing is killing, america has never been so desperate and poor that they have had to resort to the methods of murder that arab insurgents have. if the Un wanted to arm all these terrorist groups with the same level of arms that the Us and Uk army has and give them training and resources to build proper armies or militias we probably wouldn't see any of these suicide bombings and intentional murder of civilian populations to make a point but then we would see far more civilian deaths as a result of 'collateral damage' and the occasional massacre which could then be washed away as a natural, but regretful incident of war.

these insurgents and terrorists are just using what they have to do whatever they can in service to their goals, whatever they may be.. as sovtek said different people are doing different things for different reasons. The main difference between the armies of the west and the insurgencies of the arabic world is that the insurgencies are desperate, and their anger towards western imperialism is being fanned into out and out hatred whereas the west is impassionate, and able to muster large numbers of disposable heroes for their cause.

The west is not impassionate, in fact the military is very much encumbered by the compassion of their citizens. The giant homoginized american army is fully aware that it is under the constant watch of the media and other civlian authorities. They make constant fumbled attempts at winning over the iraqi general population, they try to bomb military targets but they invariably make mistakes. They suffer from a lack of collective experience and training in occupation. It is a large homogenic force designed to fight cold wars against super powers, not to keep the peace in a civil war. They are tragically sloppy in many instances but at the end of the day they generally mean well. Does this make their actions forgivable? Not really. Does this make them evil? Certainly not. I'm not saying every soilder is a saint, but they are not simply terrorists with better guns and comparitivly they treat the population far better then most invading orginised middle eastern armys would.

And whats this about the militants being desperate? They are the remaining cause of many problems in iraq. If they didn't operate against civilians and other factions the americans would have mostly left by now and the remainder would have retreated to a small number of detached military bases just like they did in japan, west germany and south korea. All of which are now model economic nations.

Tell me where is the desperation? the occupying response is equivicable to the insurgent attacks. Attacks go up, more troops enter. These are political and cultural disputes, not a matter of survival.

bk

"Terrorism" and insurgency have always played a part on the fringes of almost all wars. The US even used the tactic of guerilla warfare during the US war of independence and we Irish used it against Britain in our war of independence.

However it wasn't as notable in the past because it usually played a very minor part of a much bigger war, where far more people (both military and civilians) were killed due to standard military operations.

It is far more noticeable in Iraq, because the standard military operations ended so quickly and the "terrorism" and insurgency is all that is left.

In Iraq there are really two wars going on.
There is a relatively minor insurgency going on against the US and there is the much more serious and dangerous civil war going on between Sunni and Shia militias.

FYI

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

...

"The west is not impassionate, in fact the military is very much encumbered by the compassion of their citizens. The giant homoginized american army is fully aware that it is under the constant watch of the media and other civlian authorities."

And what actual impact does this have? Did thousands of people not march against the war? Were they not ignored? The media tend to follow the government line on these things. In fact, I believe there was an independent study into media coverage of the lead up to the war, it found that the media were generally pro-government on the issue, even the supposed 'liberal' media. This didn't really change a whole lot until the 'reality' was revealed. That which should have been, and was, obvious prior to the invasion. Even since then, we haven't seen any massive swing in media coverage, it is, as is pointed out by many media commentators, 'how can we do better?, the highschool newspaper stance.

The majority of people are now firmly against the war and continued occupation, yet troop numbers increase! And the media has now begun it's assault on Iraq's neighbour! Without even the tiny shreds of 'evidence' they supposedly had prior to Iraq.

"They make constant fumbled attempts at winning over the iraqi general population, they try to bomb military targets but they invariably make mistakes. They suffer from a lack of collective experience and training in occupation. It is a large homogenic force designed to fight cold wars against super powers, not to keep the peace in a civil war. They are tragically sloppy in many instances but at the end of the day they generally mean well."

This is the most apologetic summary of the Iraq war I have ever seen, even from the pro-war camp. A completely benevolent force, trying to 'do good' in tough circumstances. Absolutely without foundation, a fantasy.

No one is making the argument that each coalition soldier is evil. What we can say with some certainty is that the war was based on false pretences (read: lies). It has cost 650,000+ Iraqi lives. It has destroyed Iraqi infrastructure. It's natural resources are about to be divided up between the victors. And billions have been stolen by foreign corporations.

"comparitivly they treat the population far better then most invading orginised middle eastern armys would."

What like the Iraq invasion of Iran? Saddam's culling of his own people? Who supported that then? Answer: 'the West'

"And whats this about the militants being desperate? They are the remaining cause of many problems in iraq."

Again, a complete inversion of the truth. It is the +occupiers+ that continue the violence, see any recent opinion poll.

Manic Moran

It started out predominantly as a simple patriotic issue, at which point they were pretty much guerilla forces. The "Anti-Iraqi-Forces" thing, which I agree is silly, pre-dates any elections. FWIW, I always referred to them as "insurgents" or "the opposition"

After the elections, I think a lot of the 'patriotism' argument loses weight. A lot of them aren't so worried about kicking the Coalition out as they are about the shape of Iraq: Many of the groups are very much pro-Iraq as a nation, they're just "Anti-Any-Iraq-That-Isn't-Run-The-Way-We-Want-It-To-Be-Run" as a concept. As a result, we now have gang warfare that isn't based upon patriotism, it's based upon prejudice, old animosities, and power.

In Iraq there are really two wars going on.
There is a relatively minor insurgency going on against the US and there is the much more serious and dangerous civil war going on between Sunni and Shia militias.

What he said. The 'patriotic' war is a sideshow, and ultimately, irrelevant. If the internecine fight can be stopped, the other will be soon enough as well as any major need for troop presence is removed. If it can't be stopped, then it doesn't matter who claims to control the country in the first place. FYI's quote about the 80% of attacks being focused on Americans is (a) out of date, as the current round of internecine violence was started in Feb 2006 by the Mosque bombing, after the dates covered by that report, and (b ) irrelevant as any insurgency is primarily based around a political goal, so appearances are what count: The appearance is that the internecine fighting is a lot more serious than any anti-invader fighting.

If Ireland was to be invaded in the morning (yes, pedants, I know it is not going to happen), I wouldn't stand by and watch some foreign power install their will on my country.

What 'event' would make you think that the people had regained control of the country, and were no longer puppets of the foreign power? Where's the dividing line? Are the coalition not trying to get to that dividing line, so they can go home?

NTM

FYI

Manic Moran wrote:

As a result, we now have gang warfare that isn't based upon patriotism, it's based upon prejudice, old animosities, and power.

...FYI's quote about the 80% of attacks being focused on Americans is (a) out of date, as the current round of internecine violence was started in Feb 2006 by the Mosque bombing, after the dates covered by that report, and (b ) irrelevant as any insurgency is primarily based around a political goal, so appearances are what count: The appearance is that the internecine fighting is a lot more serious than any anti-invader fighting.

...What 'event' would make you think that the people had regained control of the country, and were no longer puppets of the foreign power? Where's the dividing line? Are the coalition not trying to get to that dividing line, so they can go home?

The Iraqi resistance is predominantly that, a resistance. It is of course now split in some ways along sectarian lines. But Iraq is not that simple. Prior to the war Iraqis often married beyond these lines. The occupation has exacerbated tensions.

No offence Manic, but you didn't actually follow the link to the statistics did you? You would of course have noticed that while the figures are out of date, as are any figures published in the +past+. But they are not as you suggest actually 'out of date' in the sense they are unrepresentative. Check the dates!

Your assertions are simply that, assertions. No facts are offered to support them.

What event? Are you for real? Once Iraq is no longer occupied by a foreign power, that currently holds the right to arrest, imprison, kill anyone they wish with impunity, then they are on the road to independence.

'Dividing line', what does that mean? The occupiers will go home when either a) they have installed a puppet regime which will pander to US interests, or b) when they get booted out.

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote:

What 'event' would make you think that the people had regained control of the country, and were no longer puppets of the foreign power? Where's the dividing line? Are the coalition not trying to get to that dividing line, so they can go home?
NTM

I remember Maliki saying he would ask for a timetable for withdrawal from the Amricans...and as quickly dropped that when he got a lot of shaking heads from the US.

sovtek

FYI wrote:

No offence Manic, but you didn't actually follow the link to the statistics did you? You would of course have noticed that while the figures are out of date, as are any figures published in the +past+. But they are not as you suggest actually 'out of date' in the sense they are unrepresentative. Check the dates!

I think there's a poll from the last year that showed that the overwhelming majority of Iraqi's support attacks on US troops.
That would suggest the figures aren't that out of date or irrelevant.

Manic Moran

FYI wrote:

No offence Manic, but you didn't actually follow the link to the statistics did you? You would of course have noticed that while the figures are out of date, as are any figures published in the +past+. But they are not as you suggest actually 'out of date' in the sense they are unrepresentative. Check the dates!

The one time I don't click on a link... Still, the 80-80 statement is invalid given the fact that since Nov 2005, the amount of 'red' on those graphs is going down, and the amount of 'yellow' and 'orange' is increasing until the data stops in July. I think it would also be hard to argue that the scale of attacks on civilians have not been increasing in the months after those figures stop.

What event? Are you for real? Once Iraq is no longer occupied by a foreign power, that currently holds the right to arrest, imprison, kill anyone they wish with impunity, then they are on the road to independence.

You are suffering the same flaw as a lot of the insurgent groups. You are quite vocal about what you don't want, but not very vocal about what you do want, or the practicalities behind how to get there. It's all very well saying 'Invaders out', but in order for that to occur, there should be some structure. Without proposing what that structure is, or how that structure is to stand, such as holding elections and having a government which can support itself, the 'invaders out' desire is pretty redundant. Of course, I guess you can always go the Somalia route, have external factors leave and just let the people fight it out for a few years until finally someone gets in charge by force alone.

'Dividing line', what does that mean? The occupiers will go home when either a) they have installed a puppet regime which will pander to US interests, or b) when they get booted out.

What's the difference between a puppet regime which was elected by the people, and a non-puppet regime which was elected by the people?

You omit option c), which is 'The occupiers go home when a government acceptable to the country at large is capable of operating and supporting itself'

NTM

FYI

Manic Moran wrote:

The one time I don't click on a link... Still, the 80-80 statement is invalid given the fact that since Nov 2005, the amount of 'red' on those graphs is going down, and the amount of 'yellow' and 'orange' is increasing until the data stops in July. I think it would also be hard to argue that the scale of attacks on civilians have not been increasing in the months after those figures stop.

You're not going to be able to squirm out of that one I'm afraid. You sought to hammer the facts around your already 'concrete' preconceptions, and it isn't going to work.

Manic Moran wrote:

You are quite vocal about what you don't want, but not very vocal about what you do want, or the practicalities behind how to get there. It's all very well saying 'Invaders out', but in order for that to occur, there should be some structure.

to which you supply the 'practicalities':

Manic Moran wrote:

option c), which is 'The occupiers go home when a government acceptable to the country at large is capable of operating and supporting itself'

So what you suggest, is that the same coalition that has illegal invaded and occupied a country, and in the process caused the deaths of 650,000+ people, is in the best position to stabilise a country, the violence of which engulfs it is predominantly a) caused by and b) exacerbated by, that same force. The same force that is now, in no uncertain terms, threatening a neighbouring country, and regionally two more. That again is fanciful.

I'll suggest one option, not one that will happen, or perhaps one that isn't really viable, but still far better than the one you propose.

The coalition of the 'willing' plead to the UN for international assistance, in the event it is offered, the coalition will finance for the most part any peace keeping force as well as all infrastructural reconstruction. The relinquish control and future control of Iraq's natural resources back to the people.

Manic Moran wrote:

What's the difference between a puppet regime which was elected by the people, and a non-puppet regime which was elected by the people?

When the occupying power controls who gets into power and then decides what powers they should have, and later when that power has served it's purpose, then you can be reasonably sure the government is a puppet.

Collie D

Terry wrote:

If Ireland was to be invaded in the morning (yes, pedants, I know it is not going to happen), I wouldn't stand by and watch some foreign power install their will on my country.
Does this make me a patriot or am I an insurgent?

My take is that the so called insuregents are well within their rights to defend their homeland and I would do the same were any country to invade here.

I agree that people have the right to defend their homeland but there is a difference between taking on an invading army (real or imagined - I won't go into that debate) and killing your countrymen at the local market

Jimboo_Jones

Manic Moran wrote:

You are suffering the same flaw as a lot of the insurgent groups. You are quite vocal about what you don't want, but not very vocal about what you do want, or the practicalities behind how to get there. It's all very well saying 'Invaders out', but in order for that to occur, there should be some structure. Without proposing what that structure is, or how that structure is to stand, such as holding elections and having a government which can support itself, the 'invaders out' desire is pretty redundant.

To be honest, if you change the word insurgent to Saddam, you have pretty much the amount of forward planning that Bush and Blair seem to have shown at the start of this whole mess.

I think that there will be some insurgents who think that they are patrioctic, (and that horrific crime that the US soldier got convicted of yeasterday wouldn't help matters along there) but I think there a wide varity or 'wars' currently playing out in Iraq at the moment.

Kaiser_Sma

FYI wrote:

The majority of people are now firmly against the war and continued occupation, yet troop numbers increase! And the media has now begun it's assault on Iraq's neighbour! Without even the tiny shreds of 'evidence' they supposedly had prior to Iraq.

I am aware of the shifting oppinions on the war, but just because the occupation hasn't ceased does not mean public oppinion isn't illiciting pressure on the military. The troops are flooding in because their is a desperate need to finish the war as quickly as possible. All the promises of time frames and 'final surges' weaken their position substantially. Any millitant with his eyes open can tell the american position is tenuous, they have to leave soon yet they can't afford another vietnam.

This is the most apologetic summary of the Iraq war I have ever seen, even from the pro-war camp. A completely benevolent force, trying to 'do good' in tough circumstances. Absolutely without foundation, a fantasy.

I said that they weren't saints. They are not benovolent as such they are at the end of the day an armed force designed to wage war and to some extent deal with the results.

here is an example of americans giving out gifts to iraqi civillians. Small compensation for what happend to them and not the correct way to gain the trust of civillians but never the less it cooberates my theory.

No one is making the argument that each coalition soldier is evil. What we can say with some certainty is that the war was based on false pretences (read: lies). It has cost 650,000+ Iraqi lives. It has destroyed Iraqi infrastructure. It's natural resources are about to be divided up between the victors. And billions have been stolen by foreign corporations.

False pretences yes, that was the biggest political blunder of this century to date, i don't doubht that. Regardless of the causes of this war, it is happening and it was going to happen sooner or later. I'm not trying to support any political decision to start the war and i'm not pro war. Modern conflicts are never as clear cut as many would like to believe. Their are a myriad of sides in this conflict and you'd be hard pressed to find any of them in the definitive right, besides the civillians in between. The natural resources do not cover the cost of the war and what do you mean by foreign corporations stealing billions?

What like the Iraq invasion of Iran? Saddam's culling of his own people? Who supported that then? Answer: 'the West'

Yes and its very easy to believe that there was a stereotypical fat cat pulling the puppet strings of every soilder while they comitted those war crimes. Throwing money at someone doesn't instantaneously make them a murderer.

Again, a complete inversion of the truth. It is the +occupiers+ that continue the violence, see any recent opinion poll.

Show me

FYI

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

I am aware of the shifting oppinions on the war, but just because the occupation hasn't ceased does not mean public oppinion isn't illiciting pressure on the military. The troops are flooding in because their is a desperate need to finish the war as quickly as possible. All the promises of time frames and 'final surges' weaken their position substantially. Any millitant with his eyes open can tell the american position is tenuous, they have to leave soon yet they can't afford another vietnam.

Militant, insurgent, freedom fighters, whatever huh?

The fact of the matter is, that whatever you want to call the Iraqi resistance. It is home grown, it is a resistance. It is a product of coalition invasion, and therefore opposed to it in some form or other. Though some fight for what they have been given, some fight for what has been taken away, they all fight for independence.

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

here is an example of americans giving out gifts to iraqi civillians. Small compensation for what happend to them and not the correct way to gain the trust of civillians but never the less it cooberates my theory.

A little bit of propaganda never hurt anyone huh?

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

[The natural resources do not cover the cost of the war and what do you mean by foreign corporations stealing billions?

???????????

No time to check the accuracy of this, but's it's probably not too far off the mark:

"The total value of Iraq potential oil reserves at an average profit of $75 per barrel over next 100 years would be 360 billion x $75 = $27 trillion ... These calculations do not include natural gas revenue, lately about equal to oil revenue for producing fields."

http://www.auburn.edu/~thomph1/iraq.htm

From 2003:

"A staggering US$4 billion in oil revenues and other Iraqi funds earmarked for the reconstruction of the country has disappeared into opaque bank accounts administered by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the US-controlled body that rules Iraq. By the end of the year, if nothing changes in the way this cash is accounted for, that figure will double."

http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/news/media/pressrel/031023p.htm

"Dr Ali Fadhil, a 29 year old Iraqi doctor, investigates what has happened to billions of dollars worth of Iraqi money which was put into the care of the US led coalition to be spent for the benefit of Iraqi people on the reconstruction of their country. He uncovers a shocking story of fraud, incompetence and corruption, unscrupulous foreign contractors who made millions from dodgy contracts, and literally billions of dollars which cannot be properly accounted for"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12499.htm

From 2005:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday."

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

Show me

I'm not doing your research for you. But I'll make it easier for you, here's a link, you should find it interesting:

http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55

FYI

A detailed discussion of 'the confusion' here:

On Supporting The Iraqi Resistance
23Feb07

Iraqi insurgents’ claim to be “fighting for the liberation of their country” is, according to Prime Minister Tony Blair, “a palpable lie.” Let’s leave aside for a moment the question of whether it is appropriate for Blair, a man who deceived his country into an illegal war, to accuse others of lying. More important is that in one respect, he is right: it does indeed seem “palpable” (i.e. clear or obvious) to most people that the Iraqi resistance has no legitimacy. Rather, the insurgents are just a bunch of crazy-psycho-terrorists who hate democracy and freedom so much that they are willing to kill other Iraqis to fight it. It is not difficult to see how people could have got that impression.

On October 30, 2003, the chief foreign policy commentator for the liberal New York Times, Thomas Friedman, wrote:

continued...

http://heathlander.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/on-supporting-the-iraqi-resistance/

Zambia

Some interesting pionts here however here is the thing. Lets say Pre-2003 Im an Iraqi and my life not great but there is a semblance of Law and Order and saddam tells my Sanctions are why we are so poor.

The Allies invade and remove all semblance of normality and do not make things better in any reasonable time frame. I have no job no prospects and see the americans / allies as causing this. Not to mention so other tribes in this mess are now killing my kin as what law stops them.

I am now tempted to see the invasion as the root of these problems, not happy with the sit back and wait for us to make it all better approach I become radical.

Now if anyone close to me is injured or killed by either the opposing sunni/shia or the allies in intervening I am going to flip and find myself an AK. Once I become violent the americans/UK will try and stop me which makes them an enemy.

So maybe I do become a pyscho-terrorist , but at the end of the day who made me into one.

I think the allies should have played a much longer game here when they first invaded...

Zombrex

Terry wrote:

If Ireland was to be invaded in the morning (yes, pedants, I know it is not going to happen), I wouldn't stand by and watch some foreign power install their will on my country.

Why?

When France was liberated by the US and UK forces during the second world war do you think the French should have risen up and started attacking the US forces as they rolled through Paris?

Terry wrote:

Should the Iraqi people lay down and just say "ok, america. you have beaten us. what do you want us to do next"?, or should they stand up and say "hey, we were quite happy here. you killed twice as many civilians as hussein did. Who do you think you are coming in here telling us how to live our lives and installing another puppet* regime?"

Well they aren't actually saying either of those things.

They are saying "we want power, out of our fecking way America"

The fighting in Iraq is a civil war, and each side is attempting to gain as much power as they can. Both sides view the American backed government and US Army as in the way of that.

But I wouldn't be under any romantic illusions that these are patriotic freedom fighters attempting to remove an occupying force. Most the violence seems to be carried out against other Iraqi citizens.

I never supported the war because it was blindingly obvious that this would happen, that once Saddam was removed a massive power vaccum would be created.

Terry wrote:

My take is that the so called insuregents are well within their rights to defend their homeland

They aren't defending their home land, their home land isn't under attack. They are engaged in a civil war.

FYI

Wicknight wrote:

When France was liberated by the US and UK forces during the second world war do you think the French should have risen up and started attacking the US forces as they rolled through Paris?

What logical gymnastics did you have to perform to come up with that analogy?

Was Iraq occupied by a foreign invading force prior to the coalition's illegal invasion?

Wicknight wrote:

They aren't defending their home land, their home land isn't under attack. They are engaged in a civil war.

"Page 1, Chapter 1 of the Iraq Study Group report lays out Iraq's importance to its region, the U.S. and the world with this reminder: "It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves." The group then proceeds to give very specific and radical recommendations as to what the United States should do to secure those reserves. If the proposals are followed, Iraq's national oil industry will be commercialized and opened to foreign firms."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2006/1208stillabout.htm

nacho libre

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

The west is not impassionate, in fact the military is very much encumbered by the compassion of their citizens. The giant homoginized american army is fully aware that it is under the constant watch of the media and other civlian authorities. They make constant fumbled attempts at winning over the iraqi general population, they try to bomb military targets but they invariably make mistakes. They suffer from a lack of collective experience and training in occupation. It is a large homogenic force designed to fight cold wars against super powers, not to keep the peace in a civil war. They are tragically sloppy in many instances but at the end of the day they generally mean well. Does this make their actions forgivable? Not really. Does this make them evil? Certainly not. I'm not saying every soilder is a saint, but they are not simply terrorists with better guns and comparitivly they treat the population far better then most invading orginised middle eastern armys would.

And whats this about the militants being desperate? They are the remaining cause of many problems in iraq. If they didn't operate against civilians and other factions the americans would have mostly left by now and the remainder would have retreated to a small number of detached military bases just like they did in japan, west germany and south korea. All of which are now model economic nations.

Tell me where is the desperation? the occupying response is equivicable to the insurgent attacks. Attacks go up, more troops enter. These are political and cultural disputes, not a matter of survival.

this comes across as the "white man's burden" justification of colonialism cleverly wrapped in altruistic rhetoric.

FYI

Iraq poised to hand control of oil fields to foreign firms


Baghdad under pressure from Britain to pass a law giving multinationals rights to the country's reserves

Heather Stewart, economics correspondent
Sunday February 25, 2007
The Observer

Baghdad is under pressure from Britain and the US to pass an oil law which would hand long-term control of Iraq's energy assets to foreign multinationals, according to campaigners.

Iraqi trades unions have called for the country's oil reserves - the second-largest in the world - to be kept in public hands. But a leaked draft of the oil law, seen by The Observer, would see the government sign away the right to exploit its untapped fields in so-called exploration contracts, which could then be extended for more than 30 years.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,2020560,00.html

Kaiser_Sma

FYI wrote:

Militant, insurgent, freedom fighters, whatever huh?

A militant is mearly someone engaged in combat/warfare, i use the term to avoid this pussy footing about with isurgent/freedom fighter ratio and also to differntiate them from coalition opposed civilians.

Freedom fighters wouldn't really be correct either, if there hypothetically was a homogenous religeous government formed from one of the individual more fundemental groups in the civil war, then it would most likley make the country less free

The fact of the matter is, that whatever you want to call the Iraqi resistance. It is home grown, it is a resistance. It is a product of coalition invasion, and therefore opposed to it in some form or other. Though some fight for what they have been given, some fight for what has been taken away, they all fight for independence.

They fight for their own personal independence, and the quality and nature of this independence differs from group to group. I understand that some militias are reactionary defensive and others are true revolutionairies that feel that the costs are way to high, but it is a fools errand to believe that they all have the best intrest of their people in mind. There are undeniably some groups who place very little value on human life and would deliberatly sacrifice the lives of thier own men women and children to highlight their particular cause in the public image. There are also the loathsome people who post videos of their violent attacks frivulously on You tube and the like. There are oppertunists who look for this desolution of security to spread their various brands of unrest and fringe politics.
Your romantic summary is far to simplistic. It's an asymetric war with many sides, but it doesn't mean all the lower denominations are the heroic good guys fighting for a majority view of independence.

A little bit of propaganda never hurt anyone huh?

Pick and choose whatever information you like. This undoubhtedly happens to some extent, it's happend in just about every war in the 20th century. The americans think they can win over a population by giving them unnecisary gifts like candy and crayons and forcing them to buy doors. It's ridiculous. The british forces apperently gave them more practical aid. Better public relations probably led to a higher security level in those areas.

No time to check the accuracy of this, but's it's probably not too far off the mark:

"The total value of Iraq potential oil reserves at an average profit of $75 per barrel over next 100 years would be 360 billion x $75 = $27 trillion ... These calculations do not include natural gas revenue, lately about equal to oil revenue for producing fields."

http://www.auburn.edu/~thomph1/iraq.htm

From 2003:

"A staggering US$4 billion in oil revenues and other Iraqi funds earmarked for the reconstruction of the country has disappeared into opaque bank accounts administered by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the US-controlled body that rules Iraq. By the end of the year, if nothing changes in the way this cash is accounted for, that figure will double."

http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/news/media/pressrel/031023p.htm

"Dr Ali Fadhil, a 29 year old Iraqi doctor, investigates what has happened to billions of dollars worth of Iraqi money which was put into the care of the US led coalition to be spent for the benefit of Iraqi people on the reconstruction of their country. He uncovers a shocking story of fraud, incompetence and corruption, unscrupulous foreign contractors who made millions from dodgy contracts, and literally billions of dollars which cannot be properly accounted for"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12499.htm

From 2005:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday."

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/



I'm not doing your research for you. But I'll make it easier for you, here's a link, you should find it interesting:

http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55

The inefficiencies are quite shocking, but i wouldn't deny that many things have been carried out appalingly. i'll look over the rest later. Sorry

Kaiser_Sma

nacho libre wrote:

this comes across as the "white man's burden" justification of colonialism cleverly wrapped in altruistic rhetoric.

Well as flattering as it is to be compared to Rudyard Kipling, i don't think thats what i meant. I can see how you may find that comparison, but i'm not a colonialist, i'm not trying to promote an american empire, i'm trying to argue a situation as it is now with out tying it to the causes of the war or the cancerous notion of nationalisim. I'm not saying these aren't entirely unimportant, but rationally if an end to the occupation is desired then one of either 2 conditions must happen, either the americans war weariness escalates to the extent that they withdraw or alternativly militant activity and general security decreases to a level where the iraqi security forces or what ever governemnt authority can cope. Personally i think it would be better for the americans to hang around for a while, historically this has been advantagous to occupied nations and has expediated their recovery.
The alternative would more then likley end up in a civil war and even if it resolves its self quickly, it is unlikly that a moderate and democratic leader will be installed. With out some sort of intervention i do not think the collective will of the people will be satisfied, just a marginal authoritarian group with a bit of force. Then we'll be right back to square one.

Voipjunkie

Collie D wrote:

I agree that people have the right to defend their homeland but there is a difference between taking on an invading army (real or imagined - I won't go into that debate) and killing your countrymen at the local market

I think that people should not tar all resistance in Iraq with the one brush.

They are not all involved in that type of activity and the only people who really benefit from those kind of actions are the occupying forces as it allows them to portray themselves as a defacto peace keeping force needed to keep the uncivilised warring factions apart. The glaring truth that these things were not happening before they arrived is lost.

Zombrex

FYI wrote:

What logical gymnastics did you have to perform to come up with that analogy?

Was Iraq occupied by a foreign invading force prior to the coalition's illegal invasion?

No, it was occupied by a oppressive dictator. Whats the difference?

FYI wrote:

The group then proceeds to give very specific and radical recommendations as to what the United States should do to secure those reserves. If the proposals are followed, Iraq's national oil industry will be commercialized and opened to foreign firms.

That is nice, and it might well have been the reason the US invaded, but that isn't the reason the insurgency in Iraq is blowing up car bombs in market squares. As I said, it is a civil war. Even the US and UK generals agree, despite the fact that such an agreement is very damaging publically for both governments.

It is a civil war. All the anti-American down with globalisation rants ain't going to change that fact. Such naivety about the reality of Iraq (just get the Americans out everything will be fine) is what made Bush and Chaney think they would be greeted as liberators in the first place (just get Saddam out everything will be fine) :rolleyes:

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

No, it was occupied by a oppressive dictator. Whats the difference?

BUt he was their oppressive dictator. Not some western plot to take control of their country and sell it to some foreigners... again. Its a pretty old story in the M.East. The Western Nations have a long history in coming into the region, and meddling with the nations there.

Many Irish people still rant about English actions after 600 years. Is it any wonder that many Arabs have the same feelings about western inflence in the region, especially direct action in the form of US/UK troops?

It is a civil war. All the anti-American down with globalisation rants ain't going to change that fact. Such naivety about the reality of Iraq (just get the Americans out everything will be fine) is what made Bush and Chaney think they would be greeted as liberators in the first place (just get Saddam out everything will be fine) :rolleyes:

Can't it both? I can't see why it just has to be a civil war? Afterall, there are alot of influences and ambitions in Iraq at the moment, all with their own agenda's. For some it will be the civil war that you describe. For others its the ability to directly attack Western troops, and a chance to remove western influence from the region. And for others, just for the chance to get revenge on everyone.... its a mess, and I doubt there's any single reason for the continuing conflict.

nacho libre

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

Well as flattering as it is to be compared to Rudyard Kipling, i don't think thats what i meant. I can see how you may find that comparison, but i'm not a colonialist, i'm not trying to promote an american empire, i'm trying to argue a situation as it is now with out tying it to the causes of the war or the cancerous notion of nationalisim. I'm not saying these aren't entirely unimportant, but rationally if an end to the occupation is desired then one of either 2 conditions must happen, either the americans war weariness escalates to the extent that they withdraw or alternativly militant activity and general security decreases to a level where the iraqi security forces or what ever governemnt authority can cope. Personally i think it would be better for the americans to hang around for a while, historically this has been advantagous to occupied nations and has expediated their recovery.
The alternative would more then likley end up in a civil war and even if it resolves its self quickly, it is unlikly that a moderate and democratic leader will be installed. With out some sort of intervention i do not think the collective will of the people will be satisfied, just a marginal authoritarian group with a bit of force. Then we'll be right back to square one.

Yes. I realised that after your initial exchange with FYI. Sorry.

FYI

Via...Lenin's Tomb

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/03/latest-iraqi-resistance-stats.html

"Although most attacks continue to be directed against coalition forces, Iraqi civilians suffer the vast majority of the casualties,'' the report said.

The quarterly report - Stability and Security in Iraq - did not reflect security conditions since the start of the year when the United States increased the number of troops in Baghdad to try break a spiral of sectarian violence.

Echoing a recent US intelligence estimate, it said the term "civil war'' did not capture the complexity of the conflict, which included "extensive'' sectarian violence but also attacks on coalition forces and criminality.

"Some elements of the situation in Iraq are properly descriptive of a 'civil war,' including the hardening of ethno-sectarian and politically motivated violence, and population displacements,'' it said.

"Illegally armed groups are engaged in a self-sustaining cycle of sectarian and politically motivated violence, using tactics that include indiscriminate bombing, murder and indirect fire to intimidate people, and stoke sectarian violence,'' it said.

FYI

Here is the latest stats (supplied by none other than the United States Government Accountability Office [commonly called the investigative arm of Congress or the congressional watchdog, is independent and nonpartisan http://www.gao.gov/about/what.html] for those that are distrustful of any information that appears to paint the Iraqi resistance as just that, a resistance):

Guerilla attacks in Iraq since 2003 through April 2007 via Juan Cole:

http://www.juancole.com/2007/05/chart-of-enemy-attacks-in-iraq-here-is.html

and the original document:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07677.pdf

Note the proportion of attacks on coalition forces as opposed to Iraqi civilians, it is quite telling!

Manic Moran

Ratio of civilian attacks to military appears to be increasing over time. You also have the issue that the number of attacks bears no correlation to the standard of attack: If someone empties a single AK magazine at a US tank, it'll be reported and recorded even if every round misses: It's unlikely that many such events will be recorded against civilians if there is no military present to take note, unless the attack is successful.

Plus you have the perception problem. This isn't a fight over body counts or attack counts, it's a fight over perception and belief. As long as there is the high body count of civilians, you have two main problems: Firstly there's the perception amongst the various ethnic groups that there is a large ethnic fight going on, so they're less inclined to want to work together: The fact that only a quarter of attacks are against civilians is irrelevant to them when it's civilians (and thus their 'constituents') which are hitting body counts in the dozens per day.
Secondly, there's the related issue of need for troops to counter this: The latest troop increases this spring have not been precipitated by the number of attacks on coalition forces: As the graph shows, they've been relatively consistent, since last summer. They were sent because over the last year, the headlines have emphasising the civilian casualties. Which brings us back to point #1: As long as the various population groups believe that there is no unity (caused by the perception of inter-ethnic fighting), there will be little success at an acceptably strong central government.

In other words counting the number of attacks against whoever is pretty much pointless, what's important is the perceptions of the people who will be allowing the country to be run.

NTM

Liam Byrne

El Stuntman wrote:

interesting debate coming about the use and misuse of language in wartime

Not just in wartime....think "Saddam Hussein has WMDs"

While I'm 100% anti-war in this case (have been since day one, because of the lies), I have to be objective and say that if these guys were merely blowing the crap out of the US/UK soldiers, they'd be well within their rights in targetting the invaders, but that's not the case, so a lot of the violence is indeed a sectarian civil war..

So how to label them ? Don't know....they're defending their patch, but they're also trying to score points against their fellow Iraqis who happen to be of a different persuasion.

As for the Bush invading Ireland comparison.....it'll never happen. We don't have any oil.

jonny72

Liam Byrne wrote:

So how to label them ? Don't know....they're defending their patch, but they're also trying to score points against their fellow Iraqis who happen to be of a different persuasion.

There is no 'label', because there are many different groups. Al Qaeda only needs a very small trickle of foreign fighters coming in to do ALOT of damage. There are various Sunni groups, ranging from purely anti US forces, to anti Al Qaeda (recently) to anti Shiite and so on.

The most damaging has been Al Qaeda and the use of foreign fighters as suicide bombers on soft targets, civilians and mosques (which provoked alot of the sectarian strife and civil war).

FYI

Manic Moran wrote:

Ratio of civilian attacks to military appears to be increasing over time.

That's incorrect, the ratio appears to remain pretty constant over the time frame, although the term 'military' has now morphed to include the Iraqi army/police force, who are seen as collaborators

The rest of your post appears to be just further attempts to dismiss the findings. The reality is that in contradiction to current mythology the Iraqi insurgency is in fact predominantly a resistance. Those fighters that either a) attack civilians b) inadvertently kill or injure civilians are in the minority, based on these and past figures. The reason for the disparity in terms of civilians killed is obvious.

Manic Moran

The reality is that in contradiction to current mythology the Iraqi insurgency is in fact predominantly a resistance. Those fighters that either a) attack civilians b) inadvertently kill or injure civilians are in the minority, based on these and past figures.

So what? It's civilians that are going to have to live in the country when the Coalition leaves. Ratios of attacks (Despite our disagreement over them) are unimportant, absolute numbers are.

As I expounded above: The 'Troop surge' in the earlier part of this year was not caused by any great change in the attacks on military targets: As the graph shows, the level has been fairly constant since Sept of last year.It was precipitated by the repeat carnage in the civilian environment. And frankly, the best way to not be attacked is to not be there in the first place. So why are the troops still being deployed? However, as an aside:

That's incorrect, the ratio appears to remain pretty constant over the time frame

Perhaps we're not looking at the same graph. The one I'm looking at on Page 34 has, in Jan06 (The month before the Samarra Mosque Bombing which set off the current internecine strife), by eyeball, about 1,700 Coalition attacks, 200 civilian attacks, and 400 Iraqi military. Compare to the last one on the chart, APR07, which at a rough guess seems to be 2,600 Coalition, 900 civilian, and 1000 Iraqi military. My mental arithmetic places this as an increase in the proportions of reported attacks on Iraqis in general, and civilians when taken in isolation. Before then, the 'civilian' part of the bars are almost negligible

In any event, the issue of attacks in Iraq on coalition troops is, to practical purposes to the average Iraqi, irrelevant. That will fall to 'zero' once all coalition troops are withdrawn. The internecine strife, on the other hand, will not, until one of three things happens.
1) One side wins, and kills off the other.
2) The Iraqi central government regains control, on its own.
3) Both sides get bored and stop of their own accord.

Until one of those three events happens, the limiting factor is the presence of external forces. If people want to try to blow up Coalition troops, then so be it. Occupational hazard. The important question is if the attackers are trying to blow up Iraqis. As long as they are, then the long-term independent survival prospects for an Iraqi government are slim, and in the last year or so of that graph, that number of Iraqi-on-Iraqi attacks has shot up. If the attack ratio were 100% against Coalition forces, that would be a good thing.

NTM

RedPlanet

Wikipedia has an article on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgent
"An insurgency, or insurrection, is an armed uprising, or revolt against an established civil or political authority. Persons engaging in insurgency are called insurgents, and typically engage in regular or guerrilla combat against the armed forces of the established regime, or conduct sabotage and harassment in the land in order to undermine the government's position as leader."

On that basis i would say the Iraqis fighting in Iraq are not Insurgents because since the american's toppled the Saddam Hussein government there has been no real established civil or political authority.
I mean lets face it, if the Taliban were not the government of Afghanistan (pre 911) despite that they controlled at least 95% of the territory, then there's no way the current USA installed "Iraqi government" or al-Maliki's government or whatever you want to call it, can be realistically considered to have established civil or political authority over that country when they can't even control events on the ground in Bagdad itself.

And MM:

.. The internecine strife, on the other hand, will not, until one of three things happens.
1) One side wins, and kills off the other.
2) The Iraqi central government regains control, on its own.
3) Both sides get bored and stop of their own accord.

Those are certainly not the only options.
For example the US could withdraw and appeal to the Arab League to step in, and give all the financial assistance that Iraq and her neighbours need, to sort the mess out. The US could engage with Iran... all things that are just politically unpalatable for the US. That's why they'd rather let Iraqis die and just blame them rather than take responsibility for causing the whole mess.

FYI

From the Irish Times today. Michael Jansen, in 'Iraq measures disputed by opposition' wrote: "Prospects for a reduction of violence are poor. Pentagon statistics show there are only 135 foreign detainees out of 19,000 Iraqis in custody, revealing that the overwhelming number of insurgents are Iraqi nationalists fighting for liberation."

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2007/0723/1184965208463.html

eoin5

Theres a marxist insurgent group now:

http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/2790/Iraqi_Marxist_Insurgent_Group_Declared

Whats next!

Also Namoi Klein did a good talk on the whole situation and explains how the businesses are able to make money in the wartorn unstable region at the expense of both the iraqi nation and the american taxpayer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk-qBY-TiZg
Goes on for quite a bit, but she has a good sense of humour so its not gonna put you to sleep

clonycavanman

Free elections were not held in Iraq. The Baath Party (a non-sectarian party which has the most coherent critique of foreign rule) was not permitted to take part.
The Al-Maliki government is not an independant 'Government of Iraq' but a dependant government, dependant upon the violence of foreign forces.
When in a tight spot, occupying and colonial forces long for, dream of, bend all their craft towards, deploy their covert and secret forces to the end of, employ all the wiles and cultural sensitivities of their intelligence organisations to stoke .... a civil war.