Sunday, August 1, 2004

Iraq War: The goal of terrorism in guerrilla warfare

Chris Allbritton of the Back to Iraq 3.0 blog is one of the few bloggers who has been providing original reports from Iraq on his blog, in addition to his regular journalistic work.  He had some comments in his post of 07/23/04 about the resistance in Iraq, or more specifically a warning against romanticizing it:

But I want to talk a little about “the insurgency.” There seems to be a bit of romanticism regarding these guys among well-meaning folks in the West. For instance, I saw Massive Attack at the Temple of Jupiter in Baalbek last week while in Lebanon. One of the lead singers dedicated the concert to “the innocent child victims in Iraq, and to the heros of struggle!” I was completely with him on the first half of the sentiment; the innocent victims here, such as Ali Abbas, are heartbreaking. But to celebrate the people who kill the Ali Abbas’ of the world as members of La Resistance is just lunacy. Most of the Iraqi insurgency is made up of criminal gangs and mafias out for cash in a lawless environment, Islamist monsters looking to stop people from listing to music or dressing as they wish and Ba’athist thugs. A very small part of the insurgency can be said to be made up of Iraqi patriots. I don’t know what the percentage is. Most violence affects the Iraqis. They’re the ones who are still afraid to go out on the street or let their daughters go out past the gloaming.

Yes, one can argue that the occupation was unjust and cruel, illegal even (although the Security Council pretty much nixed the “it’s illegal” argument when they ratified the U.S. and Britain as occupying powers.) But don’t make heros out of cruel sons of bitches simply because you don’t think the U.S. troops belong in Iraq.

Now, I'm not familiar with the group Massive Attack.  But if there's been any trend among war critics in the United States for romanticizing "the resistance," I haven't come across much sign of it.  And I see a lot of criticism of the war.

But Allbritton's comment is still a useful reminder that the Iraqi resistance is using some nasty tactics, many of which go beyond what the world recognizes as legitimate tactics of partisan/guerrilla warfare.  Such as the targeting of Christian churches on Sunday in Baghdad and Mosul for attacks by suicide bombers.  These are inexcusable atrocities, whether in Baghdad in 2004 or Birmingham in 1963.

Mitch Cohen talked about the brutality of the guerrillas' tactics last week:  Car Bombs and What They Bring 07/28/04.

I don't pretend to have any factual idea of who is behind today's bombing in Baghdad, or, for that matter, any of the other acts of terror and violence being perpetrated in the country since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. I'm not sure anyone does. Insurgents, foreign fighters, jihadis, terrorists; there's any number of possibilities.

I suppose a case could be made that this was indeed an attack against suspected collaborators, to show those who would act in collusion with the Americans that they would meet a dire end. But the amount of civilians killed in the process was very excessive if the target was meant solely to be the police station and the young Iraqi men lined up there looking for work. The killing of civilians can only serve to turn the masses of Iraqis against the insurgents' cause.

But the guerrillas in Iraq aren't looking to win a nationwide popularity contest.  They are looking to make it impossible to build a pro-American government.  If they convince Iraqis that they are risking their lives by joining the "transition regime's" police, if they can make everyone from local officials to Christian churchgoers believe that the government and the Americans cannot provide basic security, they will have achieved what their aims for the short run.

Because the American army can't secure Iraq without an effective force of Iraqi army, paramilitary forces and police taking the lead in the effort.  One of the most revealing moments in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is the scene of heavily-armed American soldiers on Christmas Eve 2003 breaking into an Iraqi house in the middle of the night hunting for a young man who lived there and shouting warnings, questions and demands at the residents in English.

It wasn't news to me that this was happening.  But seeing the footage made me think how Americans would react if Arabic-speaking occupying troops were doing that in our neighborhoods.  Without substantial and effective allied Iraqi forces, winning the counterinsurgency in Iraq is an impossible task.

This story gives a vivid picture of how the process of striking fear into Iraqi civilians who collaborate witht he Americans works: Interpreter's death rattles troops San Francisco Chronicle 08/01/04.

But we don't have to morally approve of or excuse the type of violence the Iraqi resistance is practicing to recognize its effectiveness.  The postponement of the national congress in Iraq that had been scheduled for last week is a sign of this.  As Juan Cole notes (07/30/04), that was "a sign that the polical situation in Iraq is even worse than anyone had suspected."  And Cole was one who already thought it was bad.  He continues:

The problem is that this postponement is not a good sign for the country's ability to hold one person, one vote parliamentary elections only five months from now.

Meanwhile, Italian troops in Nasiriyah clashed with militiamen who tried to take control of two bridges into the city. The militiamen were not identified but are likely to be followers of Muqtada al-Sadr. These sorts of incidents suggest that PM Allawi really is just the mayor of downtown Baghdad, and that neither the Iraqi government nor the US-led coalition really are in control of Iraq's cities.

John Kerry, perhaps unlike his running mate, seems to realize that escalating the US presence in Iraq is not the answer: Kerry Foresees No More U.S. Troops for Iraq Reuters 08/01/04.

Kerry told CBS if the United States showed it had a "smarter, more engaged" foreign policy, "We're going to bring people to our side and we're not only not going to put additional troops there, that's the way to bring our troops home."

In the past, Kerry has not ruled out sending more Americansto join the 140,000 U.S. troops already in Iraq but has said he would encourage other countries, particularly Arab nations, to contribute forces.

Most Arab and Muslim leaders, facing public opposition over pro-U.S. policies, have so far declined to contribute troops to the American-led coalition.

"I don't envision it," he said when asked if he would send more U.S. soldiers. "I believe that my leadership and my plan to approach these countries -- and I'm not negotiating it publicly -- I know what I want to do. I know what I believe can be achieved."

No comments: