| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| BBC's new documentary on the Iraqi insurgency |
| 2006-04-02 |
| As a US tank comes into view on a street in Ramadi, west of Baghdad, three fighters in civilian clothes and headscarves aim their weapons and wait. They claim to be part of al-Qaeda in Iraq. "This is a message to America," one insurgent says to the camera. "Look at your might and power, yet you are unable to walk the streets of Ramadi, which belongs to the mujahideen." He turns back to the tank, which has paused a few blocks away. "I swear by almighty God we will destroy them," the insurgent says. We received this footage while making a documentary about the Sunni insurgency fighting the Coalition Forces in Iraq. We had asked local fixers and stringers in Baghdad if they would be prepared to take a camera and a list of prepared questions into the heart of the Sunni Triangle to speak directly with insurgents. Few accepted such a dangerous task. Of those that did, one person got past the roadblocks with the film of al-Qaeda in Ramadi. Cases of US heavy handedness or the abuse in Abu Ghraib have provided fertile ground for the insurgents to recruit from. "A number of the insurgents keep saying to me that this is what I was trained for," journalist Michael Ware explained to us. "They say the next generation is going to be worse than we've ever been. And it's in this way that it's al-Qaeda that are one of the main beneficiaries of this war. "The Bush administration is the midwife to the next generation of al-Qaeda. And that's a generation that is principally being shaped by Zarqawi," Mr Ware said. The normal methods of making a documentary about the evolution of the Sunni insurgency are not possible in Iraq. Our contact with the insurgency came in two other ways. Firstly, through two journalists - Michael Ware, who has had contact with members of the insurgency from the very beginning; and Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, who has travelled throughout the Middle East to understand more about the foreign fighters coming to fight in this war. And secondly we embedded with US and Iraqi forces. We filmed the raids they were making to counter the insurgency. The officers we spoke to were exceptionally candid about the realities of the situation and the problems resulting from past mistakes. Something we were not expecting. But what did we learn? That the disbanding of the Iraqi army and the Baath Party had been a monumental mistake. At the end of the war, there was a moment when a policy of inclusion might not have pushed people into opposition. That the insurgency consists of three main groups - the foreign element led in part by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; the nationalist element of former Iraqi soldiers and Baathists; and a middle ground of Iraqi Islamic nationalists. That the insurgency has developed into an organised, structured force, leading an increasingly effective campaign. "Falluja was a moment of transformation for the resistance. It became a secure area for the resistance to work," Abu Mohammed, a representative of the national resistance, told us. A marriage of convenience between these groups took root during the first battle of Falluja in April 2004 when US troops could not take back the city. We also leant that post-Falluja, this co-ordinated insurgency spread across Iraq. Some cities fell completely under the control of the insurgents. We travelled to Talafar, in the north of Iraq near the Syrian border, and spoke to residents who had lived through a horrific reign of terror when al-Qaeda ran the city. "The terrorists shot my brother with two bullets in his stomach - they cut open his stomach and put explosives inside," said one man. "My father wanted to go and pick him up. They blew up my father, beheaded him and put his head on his corpse." Foreign fighters, estimated at only 15% of the insurgency, have had an enormous impact. They have provided men, money and weapons to trained officers from the former Iraqi army. And they provided an ideology that has struck a chord with some disenfranchised Iraqis. An ideology witnessed by Ghaith Abdul-Ahad in Falluja before the Americans retook the city in November 2004. "A Yemeni fighter would tell me about his pregnant wife, his children and the young daughter that he loves very much. And then you see tears running down his eyes and then he would dismiss this, oh no, no, this is the devil trying to tempt me away from my Jihad by reminding me of my family." So would Iraq be better off if US and British troops withdrew? It may remove one motivation for the insurgency. "The resistance is a natural reaction to any occupation," says Abu Mohammed. "All occupations in history faced a resistance - this occupation is an insult to me and my people. "Since I'm an officer, the responsibility falls on my shoulders. So I have to finish this occupation." But above and beyond the motives of the nationalists, there is the "game plan" laid out by Zarqawi in a letter in early 2004. One of the primary aims was to foment civil war between the Sunnis and Shias. Recent events in Iraq show this agenda is still being vigorously pursued. An Iraqi officer we spoke to said that if the international coalition were to pull out of Iraq, "You can forget about a country called Iraq. There'd be massacres in the street - Sunnis will kill Shias and Shias will kill Sunnis". "The Muslim will kill the Christian and the Christian will kill the Muslim. The Arab will kill the Kurd and the Kurd will kill the Arab. It is very, very important that the coalition forces stay in Iraq," the officer told us. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #12 CA, ALL the world has a vested interest in the West (and the U.S.) being successful in Iraq and Afghanistan. These organizations are no more powerful than the Leftist groups that were roamed the earth 1960-1990. The only thing that the Islamofacists have now is better PR and a willing press. The reason we no longer hear of the Red Brigade (et al) is that the press didnÂ’t go out of their way to champion their cause AGAINST the rest of the world. And yes there are enough leftists around to fund them if they had any kind of following. I have been to the Middle East and these radical clerics and their followers are a very small portion of the population, but the MSM goes out of its way to seek them out and glorify their position. Ware and his ilk have chosen sides so let them share the fate of their comrades. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-04-02 18:59 |
| #11 One can blame the Bush Administration for creating the next generation of Al Qaida. One could also assume these guys would have remained mosque monkeys if the War on Terror never happened. I would not be such a drunk if it wasn't for the damn beer producers. |
| Posted by: john 2006-04-02 16:39 |
| #10 As for BeBS, this is old spit in a different chalice. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-04-02 15:59 |
| #9 CS - Ware is a tough guy who has been intimidated by Zarq's death threats. In his Devil's Bargain, he has opted to slant towards Zarq because to report the truth is more threatening to his personal safety than what the U.S. could possibly do to him for being Zarq's propagandist. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-04-02 15:57 |
| #8 re: BBC, MSM, General Michael Ware & General Kevin Sykes. 2 Glory Whores who the MSM [BBC] proffer on a daily basis as Islamic tribal experts, Insurgency Geniuses, JAG Lawyers, Combat squad leaders, Company Comanders, Black Robed Judges from the Haig, The Second Comming of Carl Von Clausewitz, Logisticians or all of the above.. and Lucky for us, the bozos with ever so humble gratitude accept the mantle. drink up, insh'allah |
| Posted by: RD 2006-04-02 11:37 |
| #7 I heard Ware on Hugh HewittÂ’s show and I found his stance eye opening and scary at the same time. I though that LLL Moonbat reporters had limits, but this guy has no qualms about reporting from their side. I donÂ’t wish it, but a fitting end to him would be to be caught in the crossfire with insurgents and elements of the Iraqi, American, and British forces. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-04-02 11:34 |
| #6 It's not the BBC's opinions that are troubling. First, there is the complete and utter lack of comprehension of what is really happening. Readers of this website are familiar with truly thoughtful analyses such as those available at The Belmont Club, for example, and of the long post here at Rantburg yesterday. Second, the notion that there were opportunities to nip everything perfectly in the bud is the sheerest of speculation -- the enemy is thinking and intelligent, and can adapt as well. The relationship between reality and MSM's coverage is the same as that between reading Shakespeare and Classic Comics. |
| Posted by: Perfessor 2006-04-02 09:24 |
| #5 Stuff like this is one of the reasons if anyone ever announces they work for the BBC in my presence I will beat them with in an inch of their misspent life. They are not impartial. The BBC are anti american cheer leaders and enablers. Their offices should be burnt to the ground. |
| Posted by: SPoD 2006-04-02 06:38 |
| #4 This kind of 'reporting' just bends my mind! I can't figure out what they're advocating. It's a given that the BBC hates Bush but there's a chicken/egg quality to this. Al Qaeda is bad and Bush makes them worse (it's his fault after all) but if Bush surrenders then al Qaeda will go back to picking olives or will continue to impose their fascism and terror? US troops are heavy handed frat boy pranksters but al Qaeda shoots innocent civilians in the mouth. But the US is worse? US law required regime change (yes-mission accomplished) yet displacing the Ba'athists screwed up the mission? This shit is like a Buddhist koan (One hand clapping, etc). Are these BBC people serious journalists or sophmore potheads? |
| Posted by: JDB 2006-04-02 06:07 |
| #3 yes they came to that conclusion even before the war had started too! most odd, i often have seriously wondered if the BBC were being payed by the Baath party for pro Saddam reporting. I honestly wonder what will happen if i ever meet up with a BBC employee, hostage taking, a severe thrashing, murder? I guess they have to start expecting this sort of thing to happen when they choose to support the other side and align themselves with Saddamists. How long before anti AQ and Saddamist 'insurgents' and 'freedom fighters' start to target AL-BEEB? |
| Posted by: ShepUK 2006-04-02 06:00 |
| #2 The problem with the BBC is that it's like the NYT. Ultimately they both only come to one conclusion; You've lost the war, go home. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-04-02 04:59 |
| #1 Lock thier journalists up in the Bay, no time for traiters specially when im partially payong for them!!!! furious. |
| Posted by: ShepUK 2006-04-02 04:59 |