When the first intifada broke out in Israel, in 1987, the Arabs used rocks, molotov cocktails, hand grenades, and rifles. That same year the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka began a fifteen year campaign that employed suicide bombers.
When the second (al-Asqa) Intifada began, the Palestinians adopted the tactics of the Tamil Tigers. During the most deadly year of the Second Intifada, 2002, there were forty-two seperate suicide bombings that killed 228 people.
By way of comparison, as of July:
So, in one month (May) Iraq experienced nearly as many suicide bombings as Israel has experienced since the Oslo Accords were signed, and in that one month Iraq had over twice as many suicide bombings as Israel suffered in all of 2002.
:::flip:::
Nothing has improved since May. Yesterday:
The powerful explosion rattled windows miles from the stretch of highway in the eastern neighborhood of Ghadeer. Blood from the dead and injured soaked bread in roadside stalls…
Iraqi officials provided no immediate count of the casualties. Witnesses said they saw at least 10 charred bodies, the majority of whom were commandos, part of a highly trained Interior Ministry protection force.
The blast, which occurred at about 7.50am, also wounded 10 policemen and eight government employees, said police Captain Nabil Abdel Qadir.
The employees were just arriving for work at Iraq’s oil ministry, irrigation ministry and national Police Academy… link
There seems to be an endless supply of young people, mostly men, who are willing to sacrifice their lives (with absolute certainty) in order to kill other Iraqis. Some of the attacks are targeted at the fledgling new government, some of them are aimed at rival clans or religious leaders, are based on sectarian hatred, or are just meant to terrorize the population and make the government look impotent. A very small percentage of suicide bombings are aimed at American or British forces.
This Muslim-on-Muslim suicidal violence is something new. There has been some sectarian violence in Pakistan, but nothing so sustained nor so capable of drawing a limitless number of bombing volunteers. Iraq is in the grips of a civil war.
And it is not as simple as saying that the violence is a result of Sunni Arabs being alientated from the new constitutional process, or the new government. Various Shi’a factions are now in open warfare with each other throughout the south. The Shi’a dominated government has been carrying out a low level war with popular Shi’a leader Mustaqa Al-Sadr. And:
And:
In the school attack, 10 gunmen dressed as police officers dragged the teachers from their classrooms at the Al Jazeera Primary School in Muwalha, south of the capital, took them to an empty classroom and shot them, police said. link
The killing and insecurity is not limited to any insurgency to make the U.S. and Britain leave. Much of it is just rank criminality: bank heists, kidnapping, robbery, revenge, etc.
It’s no longer a risk that civil war will break out. This is a civil war. It is a society without security, without jobs, without services, and without any improvement in sight.
The Bush administration is holding out hope that the Iraqis will ratify their constitution on October 15th, and that elections will follow. They hope that this process will lead to a lessoning of the violence. But there are no independent analysts that agree with them. If anything, the constitution will continue to divide Iraqis.
The important questions for America now are what we can hope to accomplish by staying, what is likely to happen if we leave, and how will effect our interests in the region and the supply of oil and gas.
I can envision an argument that says we cannot afford to leave Iraq to its own devices without risking destabilizing the world economy through a major disruption to the energy supply.
We need to get serious about prognosticating what the Kurds, the Turks, the Persians, the Syrians, and the Saudis will do after a U.S. pullout.
It’s possible that we could restore order with a much larger force, but Bush doesn’t have the credibility to raise such a force either domestically, or in the region. He has lost Iraq by destroying it’s central government. He doesn’t have the political capital or the will to fix it, if it can even be fixed.
But still, before we pull out we need to assess, to the best of our ability, what the fallout will be.
It is worth remembering that most of those suicide bombers are Saudi Arabians, and that the vast majority are foreign Arabs.
some dispute about that. But I don’t doubt that it is easier to recruit a Saudi for suicide missions than your average Iraqi.
There are major cultural and religious differences between northern and southern Arabs. Even African Arabs have totally different sensibilities.
Bin-Ladenism, if you wanna call it that, is much more popular in the southern Arab region. Of the 19 hijackers only two were not southern Arabs (Jarrah and Atta).
Hmmmm.I understand that it has turned into a civil war Boo. But, according to the Iraq war vet I got to know in Crawford, his base was attacked and/or bombed 800 times in a 15 month period. He has been back home since February. Maybe we just aren’t getting the truth from our government and their armchar/ Green Zone journalists.
Oh, there is an insurgency. They use roadside bombs, sniper fire, and lots and lots of mortars, some RPG’s, etc.
But the vast majority of the suicide bombings are targetting the Iraqi government, or rival Iraqis.
More civilians are killed (by other Muslims) in a month there than American soldiers are killed in a year.
And that will continue until we leave. I mean what difference will it make to the Iraqis if we pull out tomorrow or next year or ten years from now? I am asking because I just don’t know Booman.
At this point, I don’t think the American presence there is driving the violence. If anything it puts a limit on the amount of violence that is possible. We can’t stop truck bombs, but we can stop infantry movements, and the mustering of large forces.
I expect the violence to escalate after we leave in a very dramatic way. That is not an excuse for staying, because unless we can more than forestall the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, all we will be doing is delaying the inevitable.
But there are some things we can do that might help. For the health and safety of Iraqis, they need two things. They need a central government to exert more control. At this point, it doesn’t matter which central government does it. The Iraqis also need to avoid armed intervention by Turkey and/or Iran. We might be able to negotiate with those governments, maintain a trigger line presence that prevents them from invading, and give the Iraqis some time to work on internal security. The problem is that we don’t want to be associated with the types of Saddam-like tactics that will be required to assert control over the country.
We are royally screwed. The important thing to remember is that Iraq is facing a humanitarian crisis of our making. We can’t escape responsibility for it simply by leaving.
As far as I am concerned, Kerry had to win the election. His loss is a catastrophe for Iraq, the region, and the West.
Only removing the current administration from power can even begin to mitigate the problems we face, and the region faces.
Well I think Wes Clark hits the nail on the head when he says that we have to use more diplomacy and draw down with no timelines. Read about what he is doing with some of the dems here;
http://securingamerica.com/
Maybe Clark is our hope for this country’s future.
I read a bit of a book the other day. The title and author escape me. But it was a study of suicide bombings since 1980 (I think). The factors that were most highly associated with the willingness of a people to commit suicide bombings were 1) a foreign occupation, and 2) a deep cultural or religious difference between the occupying society and the occupied. From the stats this author showed we have put our finger right on the trigger of the suicide bomb in Iraq. It would suggest that if we want to reduce suicide bombings we need to get out.
Interestingly, being a Muslim or being particularly religious did not rate nearly as high as the above mentioned factors.
Someone here will recognize the book I am talking about, maybe.
Was it “My Life Is a Weapon”, (written by a German guy I think)? I read an excerpt somewhere recently and it sounded like it would be quite an informative book.
Only removing the current administration from power can even begin to mitigate the problems we face, and the region faces.
I agree. But this is also why I’ve reluctantly come to the conclusion that – come what will – the U.S. should get out now (as soon as logistically possible) because continuing three more years of what’s going on now (or what the insurgency could transmute into over three years) is going to get us exactly nothing but blood and a drained Treasury and an expansion of terrorism.
Bush’s & Cronies’ policy has put us between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t. Cut-and-run or stay-and-bleed.
I don’t agree with John Kerry’s plan nor Wes Clark’s that there is a way into competence in this struggle after two-and-a-half years of Bush policy. Maybe if one of them were in office, they could make it happen (though I am doubtful). Another three years of this, however, and there’s zero hope their approach would work.
You’re right ,we’re screwed. Instead of deciding whether to leave or stay, we should be figuring out how to turn leaving into something positive for the Iraqi people.
I don’t know how to do this. I don’t know how to keep the Kurds, Shi’a and Sunni from splitting into their separate regions and attracting nasty intervention from their neighbors to the east and north. But I do know that staying is not working and even if we have a wholly unified Democratic voice – which we, or course, do not – it wouldn’t change Bushco’s policy.
Doesn’t really matter. Unless the Administration itself decides to call it victory and come home, we’re stuck, and we’ll see another 2000 dead Americans by the time 2009 rolls around, and gawd knows how many dead Iraqis.
are of like minds.
But here is what I want:
I want a bipartisan, (strike that), a nonpartisan national intelligence estimate about what our best minds think will happen if we pull out (immediately, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years).
Depending on the results of that estimate, I might be willing to consider some actions (a continued presence) that are aimed at preventing the worst-case outcomes.
My best guess is that we need to sit down with the Iranians, the Turks, and the Saudis and hammer out a very realpolitik compromise. Normalizing relations with Iran should be a carrot on the table. Increasing support of Turkish EU membership should be a carrot on the table. I don’t know. I don’t have enough info.
As you say;
I recognize a certain possible validity to the idea that our presence there might have a restraining effect on the speed with which the violence may escalate and turn into a full blown civil war with pitched battles and the whole thing. Yet even so, even with this risk, I think it’s still likely that our presence there ultimately does more harm than good; that however bad things might become if we leave immediately, staying longer will actually produce even worse results. I know of no reality-based analysis by anyone that disputes this.
The other thing that seems clear to me relates to your commenting on your disagreement with the Kerry and Clark plans in terms of their thinking that by being more competent we can somehow turn this “sow’s ear” into a “silk purse”. To me this is exactly the kind of shallow sophistry and denial-driven rhetoric that can only further muddy the waters and unconsciously help prolong the disaster.
The real problem with the US in Iraq is not a matter of competence; it’s that the true agenda of the Bush regime isn’t about peace or security or democracy. It’s about permanent instability, maintaining a huge garrison of troops there indefinitely, and widening the militarization of the region until finally all the petro-states are involved. This is why US activity in Iraq will never bring the results people like Clark and Kerry imagine. Even if there were a chance for stability in Iraq, Khalilizad and the Pentagon would make sure it didn’t happen.
Much of the dynamics of the disaster in Iraq now, at least as far as US so-called “incompetence” is concerned, is connected with laying the groundwork for drawing Iran into war. We’ll be seeing a lot more stories in the MSM blkaming Iran for supplying IEDs andother weapons to the “insurgents”, even as the White House exhorts the Shiites to cooperate with our agenda there. This kind of contradictory, mixed message cannot produce a good result.
I posted a plan somewhere I dreamed up last year to encourage the Iraqis to take charge of thingsas we departed. My basic idea was that for every soldier we were able to remove from Iraq, we’d pay over $154,000. (I had the math worked out so that the total amout would be about $20 billion, the amount appropriated for reconstruction.) Needless to say, no ne in the Bush regime took me up on it.
…no 3. If only we could buy our way out of Iraq and see a reduced level of violence after our departure.
We were screwed from the start. Everything takes time, and though to those of us who could watch, it was clear we were screwed by the end of summer 2003, the actuality of it took longer, just as it took two and a half years from Stalingrad for the Germans to lose their war.
There is no saving way out. What ever happens will happen. The Iraqi people will suffer, more than they suffered under Saddam, whose foolishness taking American hints to invade Iran and then Kuwait certainly made this disaster possible.
The culpability of the United States in this fiasco is total. The only penance is war crimes trials for our leaders. This is not likely to happen any time soon.
Everything else is just wasting breath. The ship has hit the iceberg, and there are no life boats.
It never really caught on in Africa, either, and it is possible today to find people in South Asia who are still not grateful for the Raj.
Americans believe very strongly that only they have the right, some even feel it is a religious obligation, to impose their will on the Majority World.
However, the Majority World tends to disagree with this view, just as strongly as the Americans believe it.
The West has great military might, and has been very successful in slaughtering and torturing and maiming, but they have not convinced the world of their superiority and dominion over the earth.
Leopold faced similar challenges in Congo.
Even invading more countries, and slaughtering more people will not do this. The US is willing to sacrifice everything, their own children, their own society, for this goal, and while they will not succeed, certain rich men will indeed become richer, and Americans will have to be satisfied with that as their victory.
I don’t believe it’s a civil war so much as “Dodge City”. Any idiot with a weapon and three friends also armed becomes a “terrorist group” or “insurgent”. Too many times theater & CENTCom commanders, as well as the Joint Chiefs have testified about the composition of the “insurgents”. Interesting that it took this long for the public to catch on.
The “situation” hasn’t changed in two years. The publicity and levels of violence have. But I agree with the need for increased troop levels, and BushCo’s inability to raise them. “Intractable” comes to mind.
[Iraq History from Arabic Media. Link to article covering roughly WWII through the 70’s.]
Assume
(assumptions based on reading of various reports on structure of insurgency)
x = number of days till suicide attacks cease.
3*x = 3000+(500/365)*x
x = (approx) 1840.33613445 days
x in years = (approx) 5.3 years
Is my arithmetic off? Are my assumptions wrong? Why didn’t Wolfowitz think of this?
.
Analyse the purpose, goals and targets of the suicide attack and you will understand there is a grand design behind them. First of all, it requires a vast organization, coordination and logistics to have multiple attacks take place within hours, and some have been announced one or two days ahead of time.
The Baathists, Sunnis and minor foreign Arab influence are part of this. It’s Saddam Husseins extended secret service who are involved, the U.S. hard-handed approach in central Iraq has created the opportunity for Iraqi factions to unite. A motivation for resistance is the presence of U.S. and British troops on Arab soil. The Iraqi population accepted in the early months the necessity of coalition troops to remove Saddam regime, a longer stay works counterproductive.
The US failed miserably to establish order and security in Baghdad and all of Iraq. The services for water, hygiene and electricity are lacking, worse than it ever was under Saddam Hussein and the UN embargo. Even the availability of fuel at the service station is poor. The unemployment level is high – 50% – offering recruits to the Iraqi resistance and “freedom fighters”.
The strategy has evolved as follows :: the targets
Terror attacks follow an established plan, designed before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The weapons and munitions caches are in place and are very numerous and extensive throughout the country. The Kurds increases tension by evicting Arabs from cities like Mosul and Kirkuk. The borders are open, have been for ages, and there is no way the Iraqis or MNF can shut down border infiltration without full backing of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and Syria. The Kurds are creating problems in the southern portion of Turkey by invading, bombing and attacking the Turkish armed forces.
United States needs to GET OUT, sooner rather than later.
▼ ▼ ▼
Are Iraq Kurds staging cross border incursions into Turkey? And if so are they being provoked by Turks crossing into Iraq to attack them there?
.
Mosul – Kurds or Arabs
Cross-border attacks by PKK Kurds
Syria mobilized against Kurds
Iraq’s foreign fighters: few but deadly
See links of my comment and a diary :: Tal Afar
▼ ▼ ▼
Far be it from me to defend or in any way support the actions of those who murder innocents in order to further their political agenda. But the PKK has been doing this stuff since the early 80’s, and while they may share the dream of an independent Kurdistan with the majority of other Kurds, I believe there’s little remaining support for their particular style of violence from the broader Kurdish community. (I fully acknowledge I could be completely wrong about this).
Generally though, Turkey’s ongoing threats to incur into Iraq and attack Kurds there has to be a compelling factor in creating a strong desire amongst the Kurds to be able to defend themselves against cross-border aggression. And certainly the recent history of the Kurds having been betrayed by everyone who claimed to be their friend must surely generate a climate of intense mistrust and a desire to “right all perceived wrongs” with speed and dispatch.
Tragically, I don’t see even the remotest possibility that the Iraqi Kurdish majority will ever relinquish their drive for independence in favor of being part of a stable Iraqi nation. I say tragically of course because no one, not the US or any of the countries in the region will ever let such independence manifest. Betrayal is certain, (again), for the Kurds, no matter what they do. And tragically because in the end, they’ll remain the third leg of the civil war that’s beginning to consume the country (soon to be) formerly known as Iraq.
.
You made a fine analysis, but I find too many news items of border incursions. Found a source with excellent summary of Kurdistan history, written for the OSCE ::
1997 – Kurdistan: Conflicts in the OSCE Area
« click on map to enlarge »
Kurdistan maps
▼ ▼ ▼