No surprise but disturbing nonetheless... __________________ Iraq insurgency far larger than thought - - - - - - - - - - - - By Jim Krane July 8, 2004 | Baghdad, Iraq -- The Iraq insurgency is far larger than the 5,000 guerrillas previously thought to be at its core, U.S. military officials say, and it's being led by well-armed Iraqi Sunnis angry at being pushed from power alongside Saddam Hussein. Although U.S. military analysts disagree over the exact size, dozens of regional cells, often led by tribal sheiks and inspired by Sunni Muslim imams, can call upon part-time fighters to boost forces to as high as 20,000 -- an estimate reflected in the insurgency's continued strength after U.S. forces killed as many as 4,000 in April alone. And some insurgents are highly specialized -- one Baghdad cell, for instance, has two leaders, one assassin, and two groups of bomb-makers. The developing intelligence picture of the insurgency contrasts with the commonly stated view in the Bush administration that the fighting is fueled by foreign warriors intent on creating an Islamic state. "We're not at the forefront of a jihadist war here," said a U.S. military official in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity. The official and others told The Associated Press the guerrillas have enough popular support among nationalist Iraqis angered by the presence of U.S. troops that they cannot be militarily defeated. The military official, who has logged thousands of miles driving around Iraq to meet with insurgents or their representatives, said a skillful Iraqi government could co-opt some of the guerrillas and reconcile with the leaders instead of fighting them. "I generally like a lot of these guys," he said. "We know who the key people are in all the different cities, and generally how they operate. The problem is getting actionable information so you can either attack them, arrest them or engage them." Even as Iraqi leaders wrangle over the contentious issue of offering a broad amnesty to guerrilla fighters, the new Iraqi military and intelligence corps have begun gathering and sharing information on the insurgents with the U.S. military, providing a sharper picture of a complex insurgency. "Nobody knows about Iraqis and all the subtleties in culture, appearance, religion and so forth better than Iraqis themselves," said U.S. Army Lt. Col. Daniel Baggio, a military spokesman at Multinational Corps headquarters in Baghdad. "We're very optimistic about the Iraqis' use of their own human intelligence to help root out these insurgents." The intelligence boost has allowed American pilots to bomb suspected insurgent safe houses over the past two weeks, with Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi saying Iraqis supplied information for at least one of those airstrikes. But the better view of the insurgency also contradicts much of the popular wisdom about it. Estimates of the insurgents' manpower tend to be too low. Last week, a former coalition official said 4,000 to 5,000 Baathists form the core of the insurgency, with other attacks committed by a couple hundred supporters of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and hundreds of other foreign fighters. Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the figure of 5,000 insurgents "was never more than a wag and is now clearly ridiculous." "Part-timers are difficult to count, but almost all insurgent movements depend on cadres that are part-time and that can blend back into the population," he said. U.S. military analysts disagree over the size of the insurgency, with estimates running as high as 20,000 fighters when part-timers are added. Ahmed Hashim, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, said the higher numbers squared with his findings in a study of the insurgency completed in Iraq. One hint that the number is larger is the sheer volume of suspected insurgents -- 22,000 -- who have cycled through U.S.-run prisons. Most have been released. And in April alone, U.S. forces killed as many as 4,000 people, the military official said, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militiamen fighting under the banner of a radical cleric. There has been no letup in attacks. On Thursday, insurgents detonated a car bomb and then attacked a military headquarters in Samarra, a center of resistance 60 miles north of the capital, killing five U.S. soldiers and one Iraqi guardsman. Guerrilla leaders come from various corners of Saddam's Baath Party, including lawyers' groups, prominent families and especially from his Military Bureau, an internal security arm used to purge enemies. They've formed dozens of cells. U.S. military documents obtained by AP show a guerrilla band mounting attacks in Baghdad that consists of two leaders, four sub-leaders and 30 members, broken down by activity. There is a pair of financiers, two cells of car bomb-builders, an assassin, separate teams launching mortar and rocket attacks, and others handling roadside bombs and ambushes. Most of the insurgents are fighting for a bigger role in a secular society, not a Taliban-like Islamic state, the military official said. Almost all the guerrillas are Iraqis, even those launching some of the devastating car bombings normally blamed on foreigners -- usually al-Zarqawi. The official said many car bombings bore the "tradecraft" of Saddam's former secret police and were aimed at intimidating Iraq's new security services. Many in the U.S. intelligence community have been making similar points, but have encountered political opposition from the Bush administration, a State Department official in Washington said, also speaking on condition of anonymity. Civilian analysts generally agreed, saying U.S. and Iraqi officials have long overemphasized the roles of foreign fighters and Muslim extremists. Such positions support the Bush administration's view that the insurgency is linked to the war on terror. A closer examination paints most insurgents as secular Iraqis angry at the presence of U.S. and other foreign troops. "Too much U.S. analysis is fixated on terms like 'jihadist,' just as it almost mindlessly tries to tie everything to (Osama) bin Laden," Cordesman said. "Every public opinion poll in Iraq ... supports the nationalist character of what is happening." Many guerrillas are motivated by Islam in the same way religion motivates American soldiers, who also tend to pray more when they're at war, the U.S. military official said. He said he met Tuesday with four tribal sheiks from Ramadi who "made very clear" that they had no desire for an Islamic state, even though mosques are used as insurgent sanctuaries and funding centers. "'We're not a bunch of Talibans,"' he paraphrased the sheiks as saying. At the orders of Gen. John Abizaid, the U.S. commander of Mideast operations, Army analysts looked closely for evidence that Iraq's insurgency was adopting extreme Islamist goals, the official said. Analysts learned that ridding Iraq of U.S. troops was the motivator for most insurgents, not the formation of an Islamic state. The officer said Iraq's insurgents have a big advantage over guerrillas elsewhere: plenty of arms, money, and training. Iraq's lack of a national identity card system -- and guerrillas' refusal to plan attacks by easily intercepted telephone calls -- makes them difficult to track. "They have learned a great deal over the last year, and with far more continuity than the rotating U.S. forces and Iraqi security forces," Cordesman said of the guerrillas. "They have learned to react very quickly and in ways our sensors and standard tactics cannot easily deal with." http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/07/08/insurgency_iraq/print.html
The Iraqis can sieze the moment or they can decend into anarchy. That's really up to them. Let no one say we didn't give them the opportunity...
Wow. Yeah, we gave them the opportunity by our timetable to accord with a version of what we want them to be like while excluding people we don't like from the process while maintining military control when the vast majority of them want us to leave... ...and if they don't do all they can, overcome all the violence and danger concurrent to the opportunity, and fight off those outisiders allowed in by our actions, then they just weren't worthy of our efforts. And you call me arrogant.
Yup. Pretty much that sums it up. They'll tell you they're glad saddam is gone. Although I wouldn't say they weren't worthy of the efforts. In contrast I've been saying it is worth our effort. But some interventions will not be successful unless the indigenous population wants their society to be better than before. That we cannot control. We've removed Saddam, an artificial impediment to democracy. As you've always said, we cannot dictate democracy. But we can give them the opportunity. We have done so. That is good. If they don't seize the opportunity, that is what it is. I would say 'bad' but it hurts me so when you call me names. I humbly submit than I am the moon to your sun in that department.
So...we engage in an invasion based on faulty/false premises, which no one else said was right or workable, in a rush which precluded the possibility of real support, in a manner which military experts said was prioritizing cost efficiency over effectivness in terms of the occupation period, based on an idea that we would be greated with open arms as espoused by the likes of Chalabi and in opposition to our legitimate diploatic and intel sources, and spend months telling them how they must accord themselves from here on in, with our President urging foreign insurgents to bring the fight to the US in Iraq, disband their means of defending themselves and make them entirely dependant upon us for security, wherein we prioritize our own safety zones like amred camps in the midst of a hostile sea, and plan on staying there, and as such drawing in more and more insurgents, in spite of the fact that the peoiple there want us to leave... ...and if it doesn't work out, it's their fault. Says someone who's pretty much been on the wrong side of this debate from the beginning. No 'convergence of motivations' for that conclusion there, right? And re: arrogance. Funny. You are the one, not I, who continually talked about me as a demogogue, who said I cited my intelligence, etc. which has never happened, and who has routinely resorted to personal insults and foul language...but, yeah, I've got you beat. Sure.
Yeah, pretty much. Ain't that a gas? We have a misjustified intervention under the misinformation that Iraq had WMD and that they would easily transition to democracy from totalitarianism. And yet, they are happy Saddam is gone. And they have a chance for democracy. Ain't it funny how things can work out sometime? They seem to be rejecting those, insurgents or aliens, that are blowing up their police stations etc. The sooner things stabilize the better it'll be. And they have to fight AQ or whoever, and they have to stop the insurgents with their influence or tell the coalition where they are. If they do that then they can transition like eastern europe. if not they can transition like latin america i guess. I have said from the beginning that we had the power to remove a genocidal despot and so should. I said it was good we intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo. You said it was bad. You said we shouldn't. You said it was none of our business if Iraq had nukes and we are not in a position to tell him what to do because we committed genocide on the indians. ' I'm not on the wrong side of the debate. Never happened? That's funny. It can't have been more than two weeks since I saw you say 'as someone who's read quite a bit on this subject' I find it a bit odd that you would say that. Or should I say Von Ribbentrop? I do routinely add in personal insults and foul language, but there is no 'resorting' to it. I rarely post anything without a clear claim and warrant. Whether I'm always right or not is another matter of course.
Genocidal. Yes. Intervene for humanitarian reasons? Ok fine...no prob. Sounds like Kosovo and Bosnia, Haiti (to stop the killing). But lets pretend YOU could go back to 2000 and YOU were in Bush's place....As the President, Would you lie about imminent threats (WMD), and go to war for false pretenses? Would you? Another question for you (not about Bush)...Would you allow planes to fly into the WTC (based on new intel) if you knew it might help support for war later? You could always "justify it" in your mind, by thinking, they (WTC victims) died for a greater goal (kind of a "collateral damage" thing). Right? Even if you turned out to be wrong (misled by your advisors, or whatever). It wouldn't matter since you had "greater intentions." Right?
Even counting his years asn a US ally, when most of his murders took place, Iraq has suffered many more deaths/month since our invasion than they ever suffered under Saddam, and most Iraqis feel they are in more danger now than they were under his regime. Yes, he's gone. Yes, I'm sure they're glad he is. Doesn't mean the price is worth it. I may have a terrible pain in my foot, and if you cut it off, I'll be glad that pain is gone, but I'll not feel it was worth it.
Not following you. No, its not ok to mislead the public. No, i wouldn't let planes fly into the WTC. Yes, it would matter if you misled the public. Congratulations. What does that get you?
speaking of misleading the public, the scapegoat is now the CIA. As someone who has studied and worked in intelligence as well as with many people in the CIA, I have serious doubts that the entire agency, with all its checks and balances, as well as some of the most intelligent, logical people in America who try to PREVENT armed conflicts, could have been so wrong. If you know a thing about the CIA or intelligence, this doesn't make sense. Anyone who blames the entire CIA for screwing up has little idea how the agency works; intelligent people don't just 'presume' something they don't know. ____________________________________ Report slams CIA for Iraq intelligence failures Analysts' 'group think' blamed for false assumptions on weapons Friday, July 9, 2004 Posted: 1:46 PM EDT (1746 GMT) Sen. Pat Roberts, left, and Sen. Jay Rockefeller hold a copy of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Friday. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a highly critical report issued Friday, the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee found that the CIA's prewar estimates of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were overstated and unsupported by intelligence. Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, told reporters that intelligence used to support the invasion of Iraq was based on assessments that were "unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available intelligence." The committee's conclusions are contained in a 511-page report released Friday. "Before the war, the U.S. intelligence community told the president as well as the Congress and the public that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and if left unchecked would probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade," Roberts said. "Today we know these assessments were wrong." Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the leading Democrat on the panel, said that "bad information" was used to bolster the case for war. "We in Congress would not have authorized that war with 75 votes if we knew what we know now," the West Virginia Democrat said. "Leading up to September 11, our government didn't connect the dots. In Iraq, we are even more culpable because the dots themselves never existed." Roberts listed several points emphasized in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that were "overstated or "not supported by the raw intelligence reporting," including: Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. Iraq was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle, probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents. The research, development and production of Iraq's offensive biological weapons program was active and that most elements were larger and more advanced than they were before the Persian Gulf War. He also said the intelligence community failed to "accurately or adequately explain the uncertainties behind the judgments in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate to policymakers." Rockefeller said that the "intelligence failures" will haunt America's national security "for generations to come." "Our credibility is diminished. Our standing in the world has never been lower," he said. "We have fostered a deep hatred of Americans in the Muslim world, and that will grow. As a direct consequence, our nation is more vulnerable today than ever before." The top-ranking members of the Senate committee offered different interpretations on political pressures on the intelligence community. "The committee found no evidence that the intelligence community's mischaracterization or exaggeration of intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities was the result of politics or pressure," Roberts said. But Rockefeller said the intelligence report "fails to fully explain" the pressures on the intelligence community "when the most senior officials in the Bush administration had already forcefully and repeatedly stated their conclusions publicly." "It was clear to all of us in this room who were watching that -- and to many others -- that they had made up their mind that they were going to go to war," he said. Rockefeller said the administration's position was that Iraq stockpiled weapons and actively pursued a nuclear weapons program, and that it "might use its alliances with terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda, to use these weapons to strike at the United States." Rockefeller said that "no evidence existed of Iraq's complicity or assistance in al Qaeda's terrorist attacks, including 9/11." Rockefeller: War based on 'false claims' "Let me just finish by saying ... [there was] an emphasis on this relentless public campaign prior to the war, which repeatedly characterized the Iraqi weapons program in more ominous and threatening terms than any intelligence would have allowed," he said. "In short, we went to war in Iraq based on false claims." Roberts said President Bush and Congress sent the country to war based on "flawed" information provided by the intelligence community. He said the panel concluded that the intelligence community suffered "from what we call a collective group think, which led analysts and collectors and managers to presume that Iraq had active and growing WMD programs." Roberts said this "group think caused the community to interpret ambiguous evidence, such as the procurement of dual-use technology, as conclusive evidence of the existence of WMD programs." He said the most troubling finding was the lack of human intelligence in Iraq. "Most alarmingly, after 1998 and the exit of the U.N. inspectors, the CIA had no human intelligence sources inside Iraq who were collecting against the WMD target," Roberts said. He said most of the problems come from a "broken corporate culture and poor management and cannot be solved by simply adding funding and also personnel." The report is critical of departing CIA Director George Tenet for his handling of intelligence on Iraq. Tenet has resigned and leaves office Sunday. Roberts also called intelligence failures before the war "global" and not confined to the United States.
No, the Iraqis have not suffered more death since the intervention than when Saddam was in power. Simply false. And yet, as I said before, Saddam is gone and they have a chance to decide what they want to do themselves. Most Iraqis see that and feel they will be better off because of the intervention. You just don't seem to grasp the scope of what being a despot means. Its not a pain in the foot. Terrible analogy. You should go back to 'cut off my head for a headache,' its more dramatic. And yet you would have abandoned the Bosnians to the Serbs. Great policymaking. Anyone else buying abandoning the Bosnians to the Serbs? That's not what you said but I'll let you have it because I'm not going to waste time trying to pull the threads back up. No. Not much chance of my apologizing for you being a pompous ass. What is the necessity to qualify yourself as an expert? Why not just make your argument? Because you want to 'claim it as the basis for an argument.' You give yourself the leeway to then say things like 'every known expert agrees,' which i'm sure our readers out there recognize as typical MacBeth. Even, of course, when those authors don't agree, you've proclaimed yourself an expert and hence should be deferred to. Well I never said that, so 'go fish.' You misunderstand. I'm not saying my insults and foul language are fact. I'm saying that they are independent of my claims/warrants on the particular subject, not in lieu of, as you implied with the phrase 'resorts to.' Anyway, I'm not saying your posts are well thought out, but if you don't think you're arrogant you should backchannel more people on the board about it. You're seeing yourself through 'rose colored glasses.'
Dear MacBeth and Hayes, Feel free to continue arguing about Iraq -- some of that is good reading -- but please cease and desist the "arrogance" war. Honestly, as an arrogant person, I believe you're both scoring low on the arroganometer. I mean that. You tie. Besides, rimbaud has us all beat anyway. Why beat ourselves up over the consolation prize? edit: and please take all your talk of "backchanneling" to a more appropriate forum! We have youngsters in here!
I think the Saddam is gone, and things could be better for the Iraqis. But I wouldn't say that they have the chance to decide for themselves. That's the sad part. They have a chance to for us to decide what is acceptable to us, and then they can decide with whatever we leave to them. That's not Iraqis deciding for themselves, and that's part of the problem. As to the Bosnians and the Serbs, that was planned out very well. There was immense planning for what would happen after the major military operations were over, and even Russia that was against the idea of intervention were brought in to help out with the post major combat phase of the deal. It was a case where international help was sought after, and even reluctant allies were persuaded to help with sound diplomacy. It was a situation where our President and his administration prepared a plan and were able to implement that plan in order to 'win the peace'. This President's plan and diplomacy is in sharp contrast to the successes we saw in the Bosnia region.
Am a tad busy, so don't have time to address other errors, but this one stood out. I said more per month, ie at a higher rate...or, to quote myself from 05/20, "Saddam is, according to human rights organizations, credited with the murders of between 150,000 and 210, 000 Iraqis during the reign of his Ba'athist party, beginning in July of 1963 and operating until March/April of 2003. That works out to almost exactly 36 years. That works out to between 4, 167 and 5, 833 Iraqis killed per year. That's pretty bad, but let's look at it from a worse angle; extreme accounts, not supported by human rights organizations, but as yet disproved claim that during his 36 year tenure, as many as 340, 000 Iraqi were killed. It might prove to be true, as there are probably more mass graves to be discovered. That works out to 9, 444 deaths per year. It has been just over a year since the US invasion of Iraq began, and while the US originally was remiss, contrary to the Geneva Convention, to record the numbers of Iraqi civilans killed, for whatever rwason, their British allies were not, and not only persuaded the US to start correcting this oversight, but kept recrods of their own. The conservative number in the year plus has been about 11,000 Iraqi civlians killed. Generl Greenstock, until recently the British envoy to Iraq, admitted the other night that it is likely higher. President Bush today said that the violence is likely to get much worse before it gets better, whenever that might be. One week ago, in six days, in Fallujah alone, aporiximately 900 Iraqi civilians were killed as the US launched a widespread but ill fated assault on a heavily populated urban sector. As of now, in a war lately based on the cause of humanitarianism, we are exceeding Saddam's death rate, even including his horrific years over a decade ago."
What does it get me? Trying to figure out YOUR convictions, integrity and honesty. And trying to figure out how far YOU would go to achive your goals in you were in a position of power. THEN, I'm comparing THAT to the current administration. It seems like you have little in common with them. At least according to your reply above.
Like your erroneous claims about my pre-war positions? Funny how you don't have time to correct yourself. Lol. This is exactly my point. You say 'per month' but then extrapolating from that you claim we are exceeding his death rate. As usual you are attempting to present a false picture with a small truth. They do say that the best lies have a strand of truth as their base.
