Article

2004-07-09 Iraq-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2004-07-09 10:26:10 PM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 All the straw men are here, marching smartly in a row (we even get a State Dept. source warning of -- drum roll -- politicized intelligence!!!). The picture presented doesn't contrast in the slightest with the bulk of administration statements on this issue for over a year. At every point it's been pointed out how we lack a clear picture of the enemy, that there are several factions involved, and I can't recall a single time anyone has suggested that Ba'athist dead-enders seek an Islamic state.

Cordesman has slipped from being a dull but reliable source of overly detailed battle of order info on Gulf countries to a reliable source of stupid comments on Iraq. Funny how his "secular Iraqis angry at the presence of US troops" only seem to frequently commit violence in a few, uh, Sunni areas. Tony uses the term "mindless" without foundation, but hey thanks for bringing it up, since that's the only description for his statement that polling shows "nationalist" motivations behind insurgent attacks. So people in Nasiriyah bitch about not enough electricity and not being made rich and happy in one year by the magical Americans -- and this shows up in polls -- and this has f***-all to do with 20 losers up in Ramadi setting up an IED because they want their old privileged jobs back or because they're getting $100 an operation? And this is "nationalism"?

So I guess the new definition of "nationalist" is a member of a privileged, often blood-soaked minority favored and enriched by a recently deposed genocidal despotism who a year ago was torturing and killing his countrymen for kicks and is now killing foreign soldiers who spoiled his little picnic for cash. C'mon Tony, don't hold back -- just go ahead and call them idealistic "agrarian reformers"! A member of a minority that has raped and slaughtered his country for decades seeking a return to that happy condition is a "nationalist"? Go peddle that line in Kurdistan, the south, or even many Sunni areas of B'dad, pal.

I guess that Syrian whose car-bombing was pre-empted last fall wasn't a foreigner, neither were the victims in the last 3 Fallujah strikes, even though locals described them as foreigners. Nope, nothing to see here, move along.

Meanwhile, who's the "military official"? He actually said that "most of the insurgents are fighting for a bigger role in a secular society"? Wow. What an idiotic thought to hold. If they want a role, there are some elections coming. Oh wait, they want to ensure their dominance -- even though they're a minority, and deeply stained by mass murder and atrocities against their countrymen -- so hey, they need to attack US troops and blow up police stations. Sounds reasonable. Heck, no -- it even sounds "nationalistic", that's it!

So the "many in the US intelligence community" who have been completely wrong so far now have new wisdom to share. Remember how we only had a limited time to make everything dandy in Iraq, or all hell would break loose? Or how the Shi'a were bound to join the insurgency. Good calls, guys.

Tony should just get over it -- his pre-9/11 MidEast is gone forever. And his desperate hope, shared by many at State and some apparently still weighing down the intel community, that Iraq's tainted Sunni minority can rescue genocidal gangsterism posing as "nationalism" or pan-Arabism, is as forlorn as it is repugnant.

Hey, it's called "RANTburg", right?

Posted by Verlaine 2004-07-09 1:14:05 AM|| 2004-07-09 1:14:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Bravo, Verlaine!

Posted by ed 2004-07-09 2:07:28 AM|| 2004-07-09 2:07:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 "Bigger role" == share in a tyranny

Posted by someone 2004-07-09 3:26:39 AM|| 2004-07-09 3:26:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 But, #1, apart from your dislike of the biased style of writing used by the AP writer, what do you think of the content of the article?
a. do you think the numbers of fighters in Iraq have been low-balled by the Admin?
b. do you think the fighters are mainly Iraqis or not?

Posted by rex 2004-07-09 3:41:11 AM|| 2004-07-09 3:41:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 after U.S. forces killed as many as 4,000 in April alone.

Action speaks louder than rhetoric. Seems like Coalition is extremely successfull.

Posted by john 2004-07-09 8:36:36 AM|| 2004-07-09 8:36:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I think I'm getting tired of outrageous articles based primarily on anonymous sourcing and out-of-the-loop, out-of-the-theatre, ax-to-grind think tank wonks.

I suppose it depends on whether those documents the AP writer claims to have are real, or if he's blowing smoke. Dan, are they real?

Posted by Mitch H. 2004-07-09 8:47:59 AM|| [http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/] 2004-07-09 8:47:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 rex, I ridiculed the content at some length (perhaps too much); I didn't really get into the AP distortion -- I focused on the glib and implausible b.s. offered up by Cordesman and the anonymous officials.

a. I don't recall any estimates being characterized as much more than WAGs by anyone. I specifically recall Abizaid's original 5,000 statement -- it was not presented as a firm and surely known thing. And I don't remember the number issue ever being discussed without mention of uncertainty. In fact, wasn't there a fairly weak attempt at a negative article in just the last week whose main point was "we don't know a lot about insurgents"? Cordesman's only good point is that numbers in such situations are fluid.

b. Of course they're mostly Iraqis. We've clearly believed so all along, as our possibly ill-advised attempts at engagement through reconstruction in the Triangle, have demonstrated. The "hearts and minds" stuff sure isn't directed at foreign fighters. But the Iraqis in question were either directly involved in a Hitlerian regime of mass murder and repression (not to mention theft), or would like in on some of that action in the future, and who correctly view the US as the enemy that spoiled all their fun. I'm sure there are also those whose idea of "nationalism" consists of shooting at foreigners, or anyone not from their town or region. Apparently there are also some wahhabi elements, esp. in/around Fallujah, who sort of easily share most of the aforementioned "goals" but also bring along their wacky religious baggage, and find foreign Sunni jihadis quite compatible.

And then there's the underlying fear of the Kurds and Shi'a. A fear that extends, in some ways, to people like Cordesman and others quoted in the article, in all likelihood. The attachment to the status quo ante 9/11 + George Bush, i.e. Sunni autocracies from Cairo to Riyadh who more or less toed the lines we really cared about at the time, while we appeased them with a charade of peace-making for the Palestinians, probably explains a lot of the relentless opposition to US action from Tony and others. A Shi'a- and Kurd-dominated Iraq steps on nerves in most of the Arab world that aren't openly discussed.

But in addition to Iraqis, and very importantly, there are foreign jihadis, plus Iranian agents or proxies perhaps provided by Hezbollah. Don't forget the Chechens whose ambush expertise and sniper services account for a lot of American blood. Take away the foreign element and you take away a lot of pipeline attacks, the biggest car bombings and assassinations, and many of the US deaths -- these are not a trivial part of the "bad news" in the last year.

The motivations of the Iraqi elements aren't important other than in helping determine how to co-opt or defeat them. This will be an Iraqi job in the end.

In the end it's a civil war for the Iraqis to finish. We're the hammer in the short term.

Posted by Verlaine 2004-07-09 9:17:15 AM|| 2004-07-09 9:17:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 The money needed by the Baathoterrorists and Jihaditerrorists is fairly significant.

I wonder if they are getting any serious money from US antiwar types.

Posted by mhw 2004-07-09 9:56:21 AM|| 2004-07-09 9:56:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 nah, just moral aid and comfort and propaganda

Posted by Frank G 2004-07-09 10:20:06 AM|| 2004-07-09 10:20:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Verlaine - a truely magnificent pair of comments. While some of what you say was floating around in my head when i read this article, you have synthesized things well.

Its comments like these that make it worth wading through some of the trash here.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-09 10:22:14 AM|| 2004-07-09 10:22:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 problems i have with the 20,000 number -
1. does it include the Sadrists? If so, given both the ambiguous political position of Sadr, and the relatively poor fighting skills of the Al mahdi army compared to the Sunni insurgents, its less significant than meets the eye (and is it before or after the 4000 killed?)
2. How many are hired thugs who will go home when the funds dry up?
3. How many are "nationalist" in the sense of viscerally attacking Americans, but will go home when they see pro-Allawi Iraqis on patrol?
4. How many are in Fallujah?

Without some breakout, its hard to make sense of the number.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-09 10:26:20 AM|| 2004-07-09 10:26:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 LH - I'm sure it's what the bartender at the Baghdad Intercontinental quoted. ...

Posted by Frank G 2004-07-09 10:33:53 AM|| 2004-07-09 10:33:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Great news! They're down to only 20k! Just a few days ago there were claims that the Mahdi "Army" had 250k all by itself. Sounds like there's been some good huntin' goin' on down there.

Posted by Tibor 2004-07-09 1:14:09 PM|| 2004-07-09 1:14:09 PM|| Front Page Top

11:49 Antiwar
11:45 Antiwar
16:37 Faisal
16:37 Faisal
14:57 Liberalhawk
14:57 Liberalhawk
14:52 11A5S
14:52 11A5S
14:44 Liberalhawk
14:44 Liberalhawk
14:13 Liberalhawk
14:13 Liberalhawk
13:39 Faisal
13:39 Faisal
13:32 Faisal
13:32 Faisal
13:15 Faisal
13:15 Faisal
11:47 therien
11:47 therien
11:45 therien
11:45 therien
11:40 Antiwar
11:31 Antiwar