(x-posted at dKos)
Susan Hu replied to a comment I made and suggested that I write a diary. So here it goes. I believe that we are losing if not already lost Iraq because we are fighting a resistance movement. Please do not call this an insurgency, it’s not, that is Pentagon spin. Resistance and Insurgency are apples and oranges, just like minutes and memos.
More below
An insurgency begins as an action against an established government while a resistance is what is left of a defeated force fighting an occupying belligerent power and the subsequent installed government (think Vichy France). This is what we in the Army Special Forces community calls UW, or Unconventional Warfare.
A resistance movement is made up of several elements. First you have the the umbrella organization of the Shadow Government, aka government in exile that may exist covertly and/or overtly and operate covertly and/or overtly.
Second you have a guerrilla force that acts as the paramilitary arm of the shadow government.
Third, you have the Underground, which is mainly in urban areas that carries out duties such as passive resistance (demonstrations, sit-ins, etc) and active resistance (the factory worker who puts the wrong size ball bearings in the tank on the production line as a means of sabotage).
Fourth, and most importantly, you have the Auxilliary. These are your sympathizers in the populace who provide logistics, food, water, shelter, communications and other means of active/passive support to the other elements.
Now, Iraq. We have a full blown resistance here that our government is trying to spin as an insurgency. Why? Because a resistance is far more serious and very rarely winable. Iraq’s shadow government is operating out of most likely Syria. Former Baathist with LOTS of money. This is the only reason Syria is in our sites, because Iran & NK are far higher on the hit lists but Syria is becoming a pain in the ass. Next you have the guerrillas. I’m not talking the terrorist jihadists (terrorist are a whole different animal all together) but the resistance fighters THEY ARE NOT INSURGENTS! I can’t stress that enough. They’re adapting to our tactics like all good guerrillas will, witness the use of shape charges lately.
Then, what I consider the most important, you have the Auxilliary. These are the civilians we are pissing off. These are the people that we have to win over, the target of “hearts & minds”. Because without them, we’ve lost. What we are doing is exactly what most conventional military commanders have done throughout history: we putting our boots on their necks, so to speak. Most people would probably not support the resistance (as we saw in the beginning) if we weren’t taking their relatives away in the middle of the night and degrading them. Of course they are going resist!
Now the reason I say we lost is because (some one fact check me on this) I believe I saw a recent poll of 90% want us out – that means our newly installed (Vichy) government wants us to stay to protect them. I consider that 90% (or whatever it turns out to be) the auxilliary. If that high of a percentage is an auxilliary member of one of the various factions, WE LOST THE WAR. It only remains to be seen on how many dead service members come back before our population realizes that fact.
Solution? I don’t have one, but I have an idea. PULL OUT! How? Well, my idea is this. Make the CIA work for their money. Contact the shadow government and say “hey, let’s stop this mess and bloodshed. We will pull out and leave the country for you to work out amongst yourselves. However, we will entice you with reconstruction and humanitarian aid if you do so peacefully. If you are worried, as well as the other factions, of sectarian strife or not a voice in the government, then we will send UN blue helmets in to help keep the peace that we obviously can’t. Let’s come to the table because we know that you really don’t want anymore of your sons and daughters killed, neither do we.”
I am sure that people with much more foreign policy expertise may take that idea for a solution apart. Please feel free to do so as I submit it as a starting point for a discourse and maybe through dialectical thinking we can come to a real solution.
Thanks for reading.
Diaries like this, maybe I can share more analysis if you do.
It’s fantastic. I’m sorry I’d gone to bed before you posted. I HOPE this hits the rec. list. It so deserves it.
I like your breakdown of the difference betweeen an insurgency and a resistance. That’s been argued some over at DKos and elsewhere.
One time Armando and i exchanged comments on it. I told him that another reason the word insurgency bothers me is that the breakdown of the word (in-surge) makes it sound like it’s fighters surging in from elsewhere, which is what the Bush admin. would have Joe Six-Pack believe.
Your section on the auxiliary is very important. Thank you. MORE MORE.
I happen to think you’re fundamentally correct. We’ve already lost. The corpse just doesn’t want to admit it’s dead, yet.
But while it is <b>absolutely </b>true that we are fighting against a Resistance–and will lose, there is also an <i>insurgency</i>. There aren’t jsut two sides in Iraq.
There is–or more aptly <i><b>are</b></i>–Resistances in Iraq. Several of them, often collaborating. They also take opportunistic shots at each other, looking at the longer view… after the Americans withdraw. And on top of all that, there are outsiders, Zarqawi’s folks, and probably others, who see Iraq as a place to take shots at Bush’s crusaders, America, and to wage fundamentalist Sunni Islam’s war against the Shi’a. I’ll bet that there are also Iranians who are operating on behalf of Shi’a and Iranian interests.
The outsiders probably represent the largest source of bombings that are against random Iraqis…. Stir up fear, hatred, and sow chaos.
But the Resistance is <i>why </i>we’re losing.
of people who read and post at sites like this one always amazes me.
You should become a regular diarist because of your expertise.
Here’s a blog that I read fairly often which may dovetail with your background rather nicely: Arms and Influence
Thanks, and thanks for the tip. I’ll probably write a few here and there, but most of my writing will be getting caught up on a few papers and then my dissertation.
with your analysis of the situation. I’m not sure I agree with your proposed solution.
Your solution assumes that we will have some say in what ultimately happens in Iraq. I don’t think we will. We ARE the problem. In my opinion, our only contribution to the solution will be to get out of the way, either voluntarily (not likely), or hanging from the skids of the last helicopter hightailing it out of there (like Vietnam). Then the Iraqis will solve their own problems; we won’t have a say in it.
That’s why I threw it out there, because it was the only thing I could think of. But, since you replied, it’s great to know that this a starting point of discourse, even if it’s only among us.
I think most everyone else is still asleep. What is it, 6:30 am EDT on a Saturday morning? I’m actually sitting in a hotel room in Manila, where it’s 6:30 pm on Saturday.
Wonderful! I’m in Dortmund Germany, and about ready to go to the Turkish celebration going on down the street – GREAT food!
Enjoy!
With 14 military bases and the natural resources privatized into its control, the US will have plenty of “say.” The pull out will just move remainging US forces into their military bases
The resistance will make it very difficult if the Iraq government doesn’t stand up to the US stranglehold on their country. That stranglehold will remain even after US troops pull back.
that’s the plan, Sybil.
We had a plan in Vietnam, too.
The best laid plans…
Yep. BushCo should’ve been careful what they wished for. Posted all the time, and now here: UNSC # 1546. Date certain for ending multinational force mandate is 31 Dec ’05. Transfer of control – including funds and “resources” – is now in effect.
the reaction was mostly sceptical.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/2/91248/20486
By Oliver Poole in Baghdad
An American officer confirmed that the withdrawal document had been circulated. He emphasised that it was intended as “prudent planning”.
http://tinyurl.com/cdb84
AND
by Benedicta Cipolla
[…]
Another positive outcome to a U.S. withdrawal sooner rather than later could be an opportunity for Iraq to reach out to more moderate insurgent factions. “The choice is not between staying and abandoning,” Harvard University government professor Stanley Hoffmann told the conference. “It is finding ways of staying which are ethical and not self-interested. It’s trying to get the Iraqi government to negotiate with those elements of the insurrection which feel they have been left out. [To] give them some of the same concessions that the Kurds have obtained would not be a bad idea.” According to Hoffmann, maintaining large numbers of American forces directly contributes to instability, even though attacks have recently targeted Iraqis more than Americans. […]
http://tinyurl.com/dqcqn
Below is the language from the SCR. No writer yet, including in your referenced article, Juan Cole, or any media has referenced that document. BushCo worked hard to get the resolution through, and my understanding is the resolutions are controlling unless/until changed by the Council. Clear date(s) for return of sovereignty and control, and end of force mandate.
It’s not “secret” or “confidential” nor is the significance lost on those who drafted it. The Iraqi Transitional Government now has control over their own destiny under authority of this resolution. Funds, contracts, and most important, “multinational force”.
Puzzling indeed that while the legal roles have been reversed, we spend such an inordinate amount of time on “U.S. policies”. We’ve been working for them since their election.
12. Decides further that the mandate for the multinational force shall be reviewed at the request of the Government of Iraq or twelve months from the date of this resolution, and that this mandate shall expire upon the completion of the political process set out in paragraph four above, and declares that it will terminate this mandate earlier if requested by the Government of Iraq; [UNSCR 1546, 8 Jun ’04]
Does anybody know what’s going on with those bases? Are they being built? I’ve always thought it bizarre that there’s so little news about them. Leftvet, do you know soldiers or civilians who have seen them and know what’s going on?
People accuse the Bush admin of not having a plan for post-war Iraq, but THAT was the plan: a multitude of bases, control of oil, and puppet-master control over the new government. What to do about the millions of people who live there and who need to live and work like normal people was just a little detail they overlooked in their fixation on their big picture.
Scrounge around on Global Security’s website. The bases are being built. Plan is to turn them over to the Iraqis as they transition to maintaining their own security.
Thanks. I’m scrounging, which is exactly what it feels like, since there’s not much info so far. I’m going to put together a diary on what I do find. I’ve always wondered if those bases haven’t held the key to the whole thing. Maybe, maybe not, but I’ll put what I can find together and people can take a look.
Sorry, JeffDem, I meant to address that to you, instead of leftvet, although that would be fine, too.
except for the basic theory, I’m out of the loop now. But it is a bad sign to build those bases, let’s face it, the US military is not a charity org. That is meant as a footprint.
are being consolidated into fewer mega-bases that will be like little US countries within Iraq.
You are right, the Bush admin DID have a plan but it
surely did not include the welfare of the Iraqi people.
AND also the American people.
I guess I’m a cynic, but I see the Decemeber pull out as a means to hold the control of Congress come the ’06 elections. What was supposed to be a quick war has dragged on far longer than desired. While the chief chimp has managed to convince a lot of people that democracy is on the march, he is loosing support rapidly as the costs (financial, military, etc.) of war soar. Our military is simply not able to sustain this war much longer. So, they only thing we can do is pull out. Do that before the ’06 election and spin it as “See, we won” and then the repubs can claim victory instead of defeat ala Viet Nam.
For a mental roller-coaster ride, read this just after reading Scott McClellan’s explanation to the press. I take a lot of comfort in the fact that you and so many intelligent people are paying attention to what’s happening to our world. Thanks Jeff.
I go along with leftvet on this one, hang’n from the skid of the last bird out.
No different from Russia and Afghan, they lost their ass, same same ; )
We’ve seen this scenario before, deja’ vu
This war was lost from the begining, mainly because it was for greed, pure and simple, with a lil vengance thrown on top for daddy Bush ; )
The hell of it is, the fuck’n coward pres, did’nt even fight his own war, and manipulated the coward’s cry against a man that DID fight. I’m still enraged over that one.
The one who cries foul the loudest, has the most to cover up ; )
and I was trying to offer a rational way of getting out! Looks like it won’t happen. I don’t want to see our generation hanging from the skids. Jesus, my best friend is still in as a WO on an A-Team, speaks Tagolic <sp> and haven’t heard from him in months.
Looks like we are in for another tragedy.
I understand his situation, and he may not be able to surface as of anytime soon. I was in the same situ.
The only rational way would be for the soldiers themsleves to decide, but that ain’t gonna happen. Bush and croanies have to try to get the egg off their faces with typical government style, and all at OUR cost.
The troops would say, “fuck’m, and let them fight it out amongst themselves”, then when it’s over, let’s walk in and pick up the peices. Sort of like the old bull, and the young bull ; )
What is a WO? Undercover, I’m guessing … what’s involved?
Warrent Officer, Susan
if I am not mistaken, WO= warrent officer
Perhaps <i>Tagalog</i>?
For which there’s no imaginable use in Iraq, it being the primary native (non-English) language of the Phillipines.
Perhaps <i>Tagalog</i>?
For which there’s no imaginable use in Iraq, it being the primary native (non-English) language of the Phillipines.
That’s it Ogre, thanks for the correction.
And no, I wasn’t saying he was in Iraq, but the “WOT” is going on all over the globe. I really don’t know where John is.
I’ve got one friend (that I know of…) in Iraq and another who’s off in Thailand… or the Phillipines… or… who knows?
With skills in Tagalog, however, a good guess… well, no, with this administration, I’ll bet they’re sending him to Lesotho.
is that Blackhawks don’t have skids – more people left behind
We lost when we went in.
Uh, the republicans in Congress want to cut our contribution to the United Nations in half. This administration thumbs its nose at the U.N. with unstinting regularity. Bolton.
I don’t think the collective will of that institution will be in any hurry to save our skins.
And that is one of the signs of an empire in decline.
Maybe not to save our skins, but maybe to save Iraqs.
Another reason we lost these people is because many of them were, under Saddam, employed by state-run companies. And what was one of the first things Bremer did? Shut down these companies and fired all the workers. Busted any unions they tried to form. Refused to sell them their companies. Cleared the way for big multi-nationals to come in and set up shop.
Of course, the workers didn’t much like this idea…
Your oint is well made and shows another of the huge errors made in the first few days after the taking of Baghdad. The Viceroy fired the entire army and police force. While many of these may have been Saddam collaborators, the example of Germany, or even more so Japan, after WWII should have been followed. Instead they were told to go away and they then formed the first elements of the resistance. It was hugely helpful for anti0invasion factions to have people with a thorough knowledge of where hidden arms caches were located.
The comparison with Vichy France (did you mean Vichy or occupied as both apply but more so in the north) is even more interesting when you examine the anti-Nazi support the Resistance received. They got both men and materiel from Britain. The concept of a ristance movement receiving help from outside is therefore well established. The wingnuts make a big thing abour what forces have slipped over the border from Syria (hysteria) or Saudi Arabia (Bin Laden’s homeland which the US is trying to stay on good terms with so the maladministration is very quest about operations in the western desert) Seen in the context of the OSS being slipped into France they are rather less novel.
How did the Vichy government come into existence?
In the summer of 1940 as it became clear that the French forces had suffered a complete debacle, the French government resigned. The French National Assembly, now based in Bordeaux, voted to turn over power to the WWI hero Marshall Petain and to seek terms from the Germans. Petain quickly created a dictatorial government and reached an armistice with the Germans. Those terms included the occupation of the northern half of France plus the Atlantic coastline. So the new government decided to temporarily base itself in the resort town of Vichy.
Vichy government legitimacy and popularity. The overwhelming majority of the Army and civil service gave its full loyalty to the new government. While the government ruled as a dictatorship it also benefited from very strong popular support for the first year-year and a half. The government’s core base was in the large number of people who despised the Republic, including the Church, the conservative elites, plus large numbers of middle class and poor conservatives and fascists who liked the government’s idea of a National Revolution. The tiny number of officers and civil servants who joined de Gaulle in London were initially seen as either dangerous provocateurs or even as traitors, particularly after the Brits sank the French fleet at Mers el Kebir.
By early 1942 popular support was slowly ebbing away as the Vichy government failed to deliver on its promises and as the German occupation became increasingly onerous. By late 1942 or early 1943 following the occupation of the Zone Libre the government no longer had majority support. By 1944 only a small minority backed Vichy.
Resistance. As mentioned above the Army backed Vichy and only split following the invasion of North Africa. The Resistance was not based on the armed forces but rather on armed militias of Communists and Gaullists backed by the Allies. The Resitance didn’t do much in the way of armed operations until mid 1943.
For anyone interested in Vichy I’d suggest Robert Paxton’s classic Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order or Philippe Burrin’s more recent France Under the Germans: Collaboration and Compromise (La France a l’heure allemande)
The Iraqi people have survived the Ottoman’s, the British, 30 years of Saddam, a war with Iran, with us in Gulf 1, sanctions/no-fly zones for 10 years, and now us again. Under no circumstances are those people going to be “subdued” by anyone.
Among the items not really discussed [here at least] is the conference next Wednesday between the Iraqi government and the EU. Funny that the original press release didn’t mention the U.S., but it looks like we’re crashing the party. Too late. It’s their call. EU members have already been in-country talking to the government about rebuilding contracts, banking & telecom systems, and general aid.
Date certain for pullout per the UN Security Council is 31 Dec ’05. “We” lost the war? Not likely. By any objective criteria they won. Welcome to the 21st Century’s first “accidental democracy”.
But Iraq as a nation has only existed since 1932. I often wonder if that was a mistake and that three smaller countries would have been a better situation for the people involved.
The clock can’t be turned back. It would be impossible today, given the concerns of Turkey and Iran with the Kurds.
The objective reality of the ethnic groups in Iraq (ignored by dubya, his cronies, and our incompetent media of administration enablers) was probably understood to some degree in 1990-1991. So, at the time, the vision of “poppy” didn’t include support for a greater Kurdistan in the north and a Shia state in the south.
With this iteration the administration was probably hoping for leadership with a strong and popular nationalist identity. They thought that Chalabi fit the bill, but true to form, the administration created it’s own hopeful reality, ignoring and marginalizing contrary views.
Yes the country was drawn as lines on paper with no sense of regional reality by the British. And they knew damn well Chalabi was a crook – but he was their crook. Proving your point that he fit the bill.
First of all, and I can’t stress this too much, if you’re actually interested in persuading anyone who is on the fence, skip the whole Vichy rhetoric. Godwin’s law applies. If you have trouble understanding this cast your mind back to the debate over the war. How open were you to arguments that cast opposition to the war as the equivalent of appeasing Hitler?
Now on to more substantive questions.
What reason do you have to believe that there is a shadow government? Everything I’ve read indicates that the insurgency is made up of a large number of autonomous groups, regional, local, ideological. Some Islamist, other Baathist, still other straightforward Sunni Arab nationalists. These groups seem to often cooperate and sometimes fight but I have seen no evidence that there is any umbrella institution.
Secondly, you say withdraw and handover to this supposed shadow government. Even if it existed this seems about as distant from reality as the ‘last throes’ rhetoric. The insurgency is overwhelmingly Sunni. In other words its social base is a minority that makes up only one fifth of the population. What sympathy the insurgents had among the Shiites last April seems to have faded. Even the most anti-American Shiites like Sadr would like to decorate the lamposts with all senior ex Baathists, plus for obvious reasons they don’t get along too well with the Salafis. Not as hostile to the straightforward Sunni nationalists but they’re only willing to work with them if they accept Shia dominance. So in other words they can’t stand two of the three main groups in the insurgency and would have difficulty dealing with the third. The Kurds, about the same size as the Sunnis, hate all three with a passion.
Also, this may be quibblng, but your ninety percent figure seems a tad suspect. The Kurds (twenty percent) tend to support the US presence, so do a minority of the Shia. Secondly, most of these polls tend to get a lot more ambiguous once you start asking when the Americans should withdraw – now, six months, a year…
As for sending UN troops – simply not going to happen.
I don’t have any good solutions. I think the situation is a horrible mess. About the only one I can come up with, and it is a pretty bad one, is to slowly draw down US troops to one or two divisions, based in the desert that can serve as reinforcements for Shia and Kurd militias when necessary, while making sure that the insurgents can’t field any large conventional forces by using US airpower.
nope, in that respect you will still ahve th einfadel boots on the ground in their turf. not acceptable at all…the ones left will be those who will be dead withing a very short time or somethign just a bad…has to be all or nothing at all….I think all would be ther better..I seriously think we need to trun it over to the Iraqi’s and come home.
Thanks, you make some very good points and I’ll try to answer.
in your premice that #5 is the issue to be reconed with, then we had better get with the program for a real honest out right draft then. Cuz we just do not have the strength to do otherwise. We have to increase the batt. size to do that insurge n strength.
plus, I could be wrong here, but what to do with Afganistan….they seem to be walloring in their own misery there. What is the hell is really going on? Are we gonna just pack up our toys once again and leave them holding the proverbial bag/ What to do???!!! Then youlook at the SA disturbance things with all the agitation there. We ahve our irons in too many fires at one time, if you ask me,…….
Yep, we dropped the ball there. My best friend (and ex-wife) Olga lived through it the first time as a resident of Moscow. She stated that she never expected to hear the word Khandahar again in the news. She is rightly frightened about this situation. Problem is, is that we had a “great” opportunity to win “hearts & minds” but out poppy eradication is having the same effect as cocoa eradication in South America – it’s turning more farmers against us (auxilliary again). Leave it up to policy makers who see in black and white and conventional officers to fuck things up. Excuse the profanity.
no aapology needed, I could do it myself…been in the sailor world for way too long…:o)
so what are the answers to my questions? What is it that we will have to look forward to in the future with all of the ball of wax so to speak? Sure Iraq is one of the problems, but the others are just to fragil to ignore too. One plays off the other, IMO..least of all that is how I think anyhow.
Afganistan is a whole different ball of wax. We actually had a chance there! But I need to think about it in depth and reply to you in another diary [excuse to write some more :-)]. Totally different situation where the populace was on our side. And according to my ex, they actually welcomed the Soviets early on. Like us, they were building schools, water treatment plant, clinics, etc. But they made the mistake of going after the local clerics, that is what turned the people against them and as you read in my diary, without the the support of the populace, you’re toast. I hope we are not going down the same path.
yes we are…look forward to discussion later…thanks.
I’m not trying to persuade anyone. Like any analyst, I’m just making a “product” for others to do with what they will. 🙂