| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Iraqi insurgency still strong |
| 2005-10-24 |
| With the grim milestone of the 2,000th U.S. military death looming in Iraq, many wonder about the direction of the insurgency that killed most of them. Experts think the country's increasingly regional-oriented politics will fuel the insurgency and even spread it further inside Iraq. Others put forward a simple, disquieting scenario: So long as U.S. and other foreign troops remain in Iraq, the insurgency will continue. "It will become more chaotic," predicted Magnus Ranstorp of the Swedish National Defense College (search ) in Stockholm, Sweden. "It is obvious that the United States is in Iraq to stay. If this is the case, the Shiites will likely join the Sunnis in the fight." The 2,000 mark in U.S. military deaths is approaching at a time when Iraqi and U.S. officials are congratulating themselves that the Oct. 15 constitutional referendum and the start of Saddam Hussein's (search ) trial four days later passed without major bloodshed and destruction. They also are upbeat about the growing efficiency and number — 200,000 at present — of Iraq's security forces, although some U.S. commanders say the Iraqis need 18 months to two years before they can fight the insurgency unaided. Recent operations in western Iraq, especially in towns along the Euphrates River close to the Syrian border, are said to have been effective in disrupting the insurgents' supply lines and reducing the number of car bombs. Stepped-up security has forced insurgents in recent weeks to largely abandon using car bombs and resort to indirect fire, such as lobbing mortar shells from afar, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said troops captured more than 300 foreign fighters and killed 100 members of Al Qaeda (search) in Iraq the past six months. Other successes include the detention of 600 insurgents in the two weeks before the referendum, said Maj. Gen. William G. Webster, commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad. But no official predicts a quick victory. "The insurgents are still there," Lynch cautioned. "They still want to derail the democratic process. They still want to discredit the Iraqi government, so operations continue." The insurgents are made up of disparate groups of Sunni Arabs, who lost the privileged status they held under Saddam. But the motives driving them are many, from a nationalist anger over the presence of foreign troops to an urge to create an Islamic state to a desire to regain perks. The domestic rebels are aided by foreign fighters brought into Iraq by leaders like al-Qaida in Iraq's Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to participate in a self-styled "holy war." The foreign contingent, said by U.S. officials to be mostly Arabs, is widely blamed for dozens of devastating suicide bombings targeting Shiite Muslims and Iraqi security forces. Iraq's majority Shiites and minority Kurds — the two communities most oppressed under Saddam — have been empowered by the former dictator's ouster and are cooperating with the Americans. Their areas, in the south and north, are almost entirely free of the violence that grips regions with significant Sunni Arab populations. But experts contend the fighting could soon begin to take dramatic turns, more heavily influenced by outside events and possibly bringing new factions into the fight. For example, they say, if Washington and London continue to put pressure on Iran over its nuclear program, Iraq's Shiite neighbor could be tempted to encourage radical Iraqi Shiite factions to stage attacks on U.S. and British forces. Indeed, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said recently the bombs that killed eight British soldiers in southern Iraq since May were similar to those used by Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite militant group in Lebanon. Iran, which has close links to Shiite political parties in Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's coalition government, has denied any involvement. "The Iranians are instrumental in upping the ante," said Vali Nasr, who lectures on national security affairs at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. "They have been practicing restraint, but this may already have begun to change." Nasr said Iraqi Shiites' tolerance of the U.S. military presence flows from Washington's support for the political process that has benefited them the most. But, he said, this could change if it appeared the United States was not leaving Iraq. U.S. forces already had a taste of simultaneously fighting Sunni Arabs and Shiites. For nearly five months last year, U.S. forces were stretched to the limit, fighting the mainstream insurgency in Sunni areas while struggling to put down two rebellions by Shiite militiamen loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Syria, another neighbor, could succumb to mounting U.S. pressure to keep Islamic fighters from using its territory to cross into Iraq. But it also could respond by seeking to create more problems for the Americans by helping the militants to join the Iraq war. "As long as there are Americans in Iraq, Islamists will want to go and fight them," said Dia'a Rashwan, an Egyptian expert on Muslim militant groups. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #5 "...some U.S. commanders say the Iraqis need 18 months to two years before they can fight the insurgency unaided." That is *not* what was said. They journos weren't listening. The general very carefully phrased it, and what he actually suggested was that it would take the Iraqis from 18 months to two years to fight a conventional defensive war. All the difference in the world. Fighting terrorists is peanuts. Being able to fight a conventional defensive war against Iran (since there is no one else in the area who is belligerent), is a major, major accomplishment. If they can do *that* in 18 months to two years, then the US military will have accomplished the miraculous. Not impossible, but miraculous. And I would suggest they intend to do just that. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-10-24 16:52 |
| #4 The Swedes provided a good number of combat troops and aircraft for the UN operations in the Congo in the early 1960's and saw some fighting. They were working in conjunction with the Indians and the Irish in actual peace-making instead of useless peace-keeping. That was the last time the UN was ever effective IMHO. |
| Posted by: buwaya 2005-10-24 14:39 |
| #3 Actually tu they sent a military medical unit with the Coalition in Gulf War I. First foreign deployment since 1815. |
| Posted by: Slomble Ulolung9962 2005-10-24 14:24 |
| #2 "As long as there are Americans in Iraq, Islamists will want to go and fight them," said Dia'a Rashwan, an Egyptian expert on Muslim militant groups. shhh..don't tell them that that's the idea. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-10-24 14:08 |
| #1 The Swedish National Defense College in Stockholm, Sweden? What do they teach there? How to stay neutral and play both ends against the middle? Seeing how they haven't been in a war since about 1815 and all... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-10-24 13:58 |