noncon's "Just who IS the Insurgency?" thread

nonconformist

Miserable
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Messages
18,740
Location
Canterbury
Okay, I'm gonna do thios as simply and factually as possible: these will befacts and cold, hard numbers about the situation. Whatever conjecture and evaluation, by me especially, shall be in Italic.
Feel free to throw in anything you find useful.


Iraqi Insurgents celebrate the Coalition troops being ordered to stand down, Fallujah, May 1, 2004.

"Who" is the Insurgency?

Te Insurgency is not a solid, cohesive group, but rather comprises a number of loose groups, some of which have a similar ideology or objective, ranging from Islamists to Communists.
This should be a brief overlook of all of them.

Ba'athists
Basically Saddam loyalists, whose broad goal is to return Saddam and the Ba'ath party to power.
The Ba'athist have, since Saddam's capture, moved towards appealing to religious sentiment.
Some of these "organisations" (such as Feyadeen Saddam) have a violent past of quelling dissent in Iraq.

Nationalists
While similar in some respects to the above category, they are not identical.
Nationalists, who are overwhelmingly Sunni, are strongly populated by ex-army.
They oppose and fight the coalition on nationalist principle, or as a result of the failure to restore Iraq to pre-Saddam efficience with respect to the infrastructure etc.
A number want to return to the Sunni-dominated politics which ostracised Shias.
However, there are a number of Shias that fall under this category, most of which are left wing.


Mehdi Army/Moqtada al Sadr supporters
Comprised mostly of impoverished, unemployed youths, thesea re supporters of the radical Shia Cleric al-Sadr.
Al-Sadr mobilised his army in August 2004, and the fighting witht hem climaxed in the Holy City of Najaf, while defending the Shia's metophorical Vatican.
The Mehdi Army believes that the Coalition troops are foreign occupiers, opressors, as well as not living under Sharia law.
They oppose splitting up Iraq under ethic and religious lines.

Sunni Nationalists/Ansar Al-Islam
Islamists who wish a return to Sharia Law, and oppose non-muslim influence.
While intolerant to foreigners, they do not seem to wish to opress Shias.
Kurds have a high presence among these.
The US has accused that tyhey are tied to Al Quaeda.

Al Quaeda/foreigners
Al Quaeda has the highest profile, and are the most violent and ruthless of all factions.
They are responsible for beheadings and bombings, and are extremely, extremely intolerant to any foreigners.
They have high presence in some places-even having the balls to line the main highways with their black flags, with guards along the way.
They are said to number no more than 3000.

Criminals who work for money

Patriotic Communists, split from the official Communist Party

Non-violent groups


Out of these major groups, only "Al-Quaeda"and al-Zarqawi seem to actually condone the use of violence against civilians-for a number of other groups,

Cold, hard figures

Estimate of minimum number of Insurgents in Iraq: 30,000
Estimate of maximum number of Insurgents in Iraq: 200,000

Estimate of minimum number of Insurgents belonging to al-Sadr's Mehdi Army:3000
Estimate of maximum number of Insurgents belonging to al-Sadr/Mehdi Army: 10,000

Percentage of Iraqis who "strongly supported" al-Sadr during militant phase: 32%
Percentage of Iraqis who "somewhat supported" al-Sadr during militant phase: 36%

Number of seats al-Sadr won in Dec. 2005 elections: 32

At any one time there are a possible 15-20,000 Insurgents in Iraq.

US army estimate of number of Insurgents in Fallujah prior to assault:3000
Number of Insurgent bodies found after assault on Fallujah
A few hundred

Estimated number of foreign Jihadists in Iraq: 3000
Percentage of captured Insurgents that are Iraqi according to Major General Joseph Taluto, head of 42nd Infantry Division: 99.9%

Out of 1000 insurgents captured in Fallujah, number that were non-Iraqi: 15

Out of 1300 Insurgents arrested in five months of 2005, the number that were non-Iraqi according to The Telegraph: 0

Number of foreign Insurgents captured at a battle according to Iraqi Army Captain after battle in september 2005: 150

Number of reports of the battle corroborating this: 0


Percentage of attacks aimed at civilians (Nov 2004): 4.1%
Percentage of attacks aimed at Coalition troops (Nov 2004): 75%

Percentage of kidnapped foreigners later released peacefully: 80%

July 2005 poll of how many support Insurgency: 45%
July 2005 Poll of support for Coalition: 15%

Later poll of support for attacks against Coalition: 45%
Percentage "strongly opposed" to foreign presence: 82%

January 2006 poll on support for attacks against Coalition: 47%
Amongst Sunnis: 88%
On attacks against civilians: 7%

Percentage who want the US to withdraw:87%
Percentage who believe the US will withdraw if asked: 23%
Percentage who believe the US will build permanant bases in Iraq: 80%

Sources:
BBC
Wikipedia.
 
The problem is that it's hard to argue when:

The OP uses statistics
The OP is undeniably right (in that 'the insurgency' isn't a single group)

I foresee this thread going the way of my Pakistan missile test thread (I had one reply LOL) :D

Holy macaroni there's an ad for Liverpool University at the top of the forum screen! Now I've seen everything!
 
Good old "cold hard figures", eh ?

I basically agree with your principle point, but many of your figures are closer to "flimsy estimates" than "cold and hard". And, of course, by putting your stats in a certain order, you can lead people's thought trains down a certain route - and this is clearly editorialising (Lord knows you should be used to The Independent pulling this stunt on a full front page spread often enough ;)) - as politicians, journalists and political scientists know, which statistics you choose to show, in which order, and which you choose not to show, allow you to strongly direct the conclusions the reader is making.

A good example would be the fact you chose to show stats on "percentage of attacks aimed at...". If you had instead chosen to show number of civilians/local police/coalition troops killed by attacks you could paint a significantly different picture.

So. What picture are you painting for us, Mr Noncon ? What is the conclusion you'd like us to reach with you ?
 
nonconformist said:
Ba'athists
Basically Saddam loyalists, whose broad goal is to return Saddam and the Ba'ath party to power.
The Ba'athist have, since Saddam's capture, moved towards appealing to religious sentiment.
Some of these "organisations" (such as Feyadeen Saddam) have a violent past of quelling dissent in Iraq.

Nationalists
While similar in some respects to the above category, they are not identical.
Nationalists, who are overwhelmingly Sunni, are strongly populated by ex-army.
They oppose and fight the coalition on nationalist principle, or as a result of the failure to restore Iraq to pre-Saddam efficience with respect to the infrastructure etc.
A number want to return to the Sunni-dominated politics which ostracised Shias.
However, there are a number of Shias that fall under this category, most of which are left wing.


Mehdi Army/Moqtada al Sadr supporters
Comprised mostly of impoverished, unemployed youths, thesea re supporters of the radical Shia Cleric al-Sadr.
Al-Sadr mobilised his army in August 2004, and the fighting witht hem climaxed in the Holy City of Najaf, while defending the Shia's metophorical Vatican.
The Mehdi Army believes that the Coalition troops are foreign occupiers, opressors, as well as not living under Sharia law.
They oppose splitting up Iraq under ethic and religious lines.

Sunni Nationalists/Ansar Al-Islam
Islamists who wish a return to Sharia Law, and oppose non-muslim influence.
While intolerant to foreigners, they do not seem to wish to opress Shias.
Kurds have a high presence among these.
The US has accused that tyhey are tied to Al Quaeda.

Al Quaeda/foreigners
Al Quaeda has the highest profile, and are the most violent and ruthless of all factions.
They are responsible for beheadings and bombings, and are extremely, extremely intolerant to any foreigners.
They have high presence in some places-even having the balls to line the main highways with their black flags, with guards along the way.
They are said to number no more than 3000.

Criminals who work for money

Patriotic Communists, split from the official Communist Party
If i was an official that had to choose which party to support i would favor the Nationalists category.
Non-violent groups
What is this?The journalists?:lol:
 
Some stats you left out that give a better picture might have been.....

# or captured people decapatated.
# of attacks on markets
# of civiliand killed by insurgents
# of police killed
# of attacks on fresh water suplies
# of attacks on the electrical grid
# of attacks on oil inferstucture
$ lost in insurgent attacks on oil inferstructure
 
Panzeh said:
Where would you put the Kurdish militia types?
If you mean the regular peshmerga that they've had since being de facto autonomous, then those aren't really insurgents.
 
Panzeh said:
Where would you put the Kurdish militia types?
Give them their own country.I starting to change my opinion of the logic that we should seperate the country into 3 different States with their own constitution.Shiites,Sunnis and the Kurds.I have been recieving from War Veterans grievances that the administration is unwilling to understand this problem of unification of 3 tribes that have no intention to agree amoungst each other.
 
MobBoss said:
In the military, they are typically regarded as the people shooting at you.

Simple answer to a silly question.
How on earth is this ("Just who IS the insurgency?") a silly question ? Perhaps you're looking at this from a very narrow military only perspective, but even then I would have expected an understanding of the "enemy" to be important. For the rest of us, to be able to remove their support, and to address (where possible & practical) the reasons which have given rise to the insurgency, we need to understand who we're dealing with.

I've no problem with the first part of your reply - that's the perspective you bring to these discussions. Calling the question "silly" is just a bit too glib, though.
 
MobBoss said:
In the military, they are typically regarded as the people shooting at you.

Simple answer to a silly question.
I'll bet the (intelligent) troops on the ground have a bit less black and white view of this... It would be silly not to.
 
Well done on opening this up Noncon. Good stuff. Lambert's right about the 'coldness and hardness' of your figures, but the break down of the parties involved is something that the Iraq debates in OT need. There seems to be a general and widespread ignorance of those involved in the conflict.

And to those having a go at MobBoss:

He has served for 20 years in the military. Are you saying he doesn't know what he's talking about?
 
Rambuchan said:
And to those having a go at MobBoss:

He has served for 20 years in the military. Are you saying he doesn't know what he's talking about?

No, I'm not, and no I didn't. I was calling him on describing the question as "silly", which I think is glib and simplistic, regardless of 20 years or 0 years in the military.

Maybe you didn't mean me ? OTOH, I was certainly one of those trying to have a go at MobBoss :)
 
Lambert Simnel said:
No, I'm not, and no I didn't. I was calling him on describing the question as "silly", which I think is glib and simplistic, regardless of 20 years or 0 years in the military.

Maybe you didn't mean me ? OTOH, I was certainly one of those trying to have a go at MobBoss :)

Let me put it this way. We all know how Noncon feels about the war. To me, it would appear that he has "cherry picked" his data in order to support a hopeless/negative outlook on the war.

Example. Why are some stats only from a certain month out of the last three years of combat, i.e. Nov 04?

Why does he use the term "Cold Hard Numbers" when discussing estimates - and exactly whose estimates are they?

I also find it hard to accept stats from such ambiguous sources as a "iraqi battle captain" - the person could be a sock puppet for all that means.

To me, being in the military as long as I have, it all boils down to one simple thought. The "who" in the insurgency, is the person putting out the IED or taking a sniper shot trying to kill me. Doesnt matter if he is a baathist, Sunni or Shiite - if he has taken arms up against me, then he is the enemy and the decision has come down to its either me or him.

The "who is an insurgent" may be an excellent question at the table over coffee/tea and crumpets, by people who think such things are vitally important - perhaps they are or are not. But to a simple soldier as myself it still boils down to this: An insurgent is the person trying to kill me so I cant come home to see my family ever again.

@ Kayak. Your average soldier over there wants one thing and one thing only. Get his job done and come home alive. It is not the average soldiers responsiblity to understand the political maneuverings of all the parties involved in Iraq. The average soldier is worried about walking his patrol, clearing a building that may have armed insurgents trying to kill him and trying to spot the armed insurgents before they spot you - all the while trying hard to not shoot a civilian by accident. The average soldier isnt worried about the latest poll numbers in Iraq - he is worried about keeping his weapon with him all the time and exactly how long it takes him to get to a bunker in case of a mortar attack.

Hope that sheds some light on the (intelligent) soldier thinking process.
 
How would you classify the people that aid the insurgents in their attacks.

Example: Giving them materials, information.
 
MobBoss said:
@ Kayak. Your average soldier over there wants one thing and one thing only. Get his job done and come home alive. It is not the average soldiers responsiblity to understand the political maneuverings of all the parties involved in Iraq. The average soldier is worried about walking his patrol, clearing a building that may have armed insurgents trying to kill him and trying to spot the armed insurgents before they spot you - all the while trying hard to not shoot a civilian by accident. The average soldier isnt worried about the latest poll numbers in Iraq - he is worried about keeping his weapon with him all the time and exactly how long it takes him to get to a bunker in case of a mortar attack.

Hope that sheds some light on the (intelligent) soldier thinking process.
You missunderstand. It is not poll numbers. Learning who or what type of person is more likely to attack you is just good survival sense. You cannot be telling me that soldiers come back, by enlarge, with no concept of the political or social situation in the area where they were stationed. The guys who walk the streets would be insane not to try to develope some idea of this. That is what I mean.
 
Xenocrates said:
The problem is that it's hard to argue when:

The OP uses statistics
The OP is undeniably right (in that 'the insurgency' isn't a single group)

I foresee this thread going the way of my Pakistan missile test thread (I had one reply LOL) :D
It was supposed to be less of a "debate" thread than a "let's clear up some misconceptions" thread.

Lambert said:
I basically agree with your principle point, but many of your figures are closer to "flimsy estimates" than "cold and hard".
Of course, as there is no chance in hell of getting real figures, so manby of the figures are speculative, but are the best we can do.
The figure of 3000 foreign insurgents, for example, comes direct from a US military estimate.

Lambert said:
So. What picture are you painting for us, Mr Noncon ? What is the conclusion you'd like us to reach with you ?
While I would the first to admit that I do feel rather strongly on the sunbjec,t for what it's worth, I've tried to keep my bias out of this thread.

Cartesian Fart said:
What is this?The journalists?
No, it comprises of Trade Unions primarily (such as the General Union of Oil Employees, The Iraqi Federation of Unions, and the Union of the Unemployed) as well as the National Foundation Congress, a broad coalition of anti-Coalition pacifists.

MobBoss said:
Let me put it this way. We all know how Noncon feels about the war. To me, it would appear that he has "cherry picked" his data in order to support a hopeless/negative outlook on the war.

Example. Why are some stats only from a certain month out of the last three years of combat, i.e. Nov 04?

Why does he use the term "Cold Hard Numbers" when discussing estimates - and exactly whose estimates are they?
The estimates come from a number of sources, including the US Government, Newspapers, Soldiers themselves, and such.
Some stats only give certain months bexcause that's the data that I had access to, never mind the polls which were taken over as short period.

MobBoss said:
I also find it hard to accept stats from such ambiguous sources as a "iraqi battle captain" - the person could be a sock puppet for all that means.
Captain Mohammed Ahmed, Iraqi Army:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9173345/from/RL.1/
 
Skadistic said:
# or captured people decapatated.
By "decapitated" I assume you meant killed.

Anyway:
Coalition

Australia
2 captured, 2 released

Bulgaria
2 captured, 2 killed

Czech Republic
3 captured, 3 released

Denmark
1 captured, 1 killed

Ireland
1 captured, 1 released

Italy
10 captured, 6 released, 4 killed

Japan
5 captured, 3 released, 2 killed

Macedonia
5 captured, 2 released, 3 killed

Philippines
2 captured, 2 released

Poland
2 captured, 1 released, 1 rescued

Romania
3 captured, 3 released

South Korea:
1 captured, 1 killed

Ukraine:
5 captured, 5 released

UK:
6 captured, 2 released, 2 rescued, 2 killed

USA:
18 captured, 1 escaped, 4 released, 7 killed, 6 disappeared

Total Coalition captured:
66

Total Coalition killed:
23

Non-coalition:

Algeria
2 captured, 2 killed

Bangladesh
1 captured, 1 released

Brazil
1 captured, 1 missing

Canada
8 captured, 6 released, 1 killed, 1 unknown

China
15 captured, 15 released

Cyprus
1 captured, 1 released

Egypt
13 captured, 8 released, 3 killed, 2 disappeared

France
4 captured, 4 released

Germany
3 captured, 3 released

India
3 captured, 3 released

Indonesia
4 captured, 4 released

Iran
16 captured, 1 killed, 7 released, 8 unknown

Israel
1 captured, 1 released

Jordan
2 captured, 2 released

Kenya
5 captured, 3 released, 2 unknown

Lebanon
1 captured, 1 disappeared

Morocco
2 captured, 2 killed

Nepal
13 captured, 1 released, 12 killed

Palestine:
1 captured, 1 unknown

Pakistan
15 captured, 13 released, 2 killed

Russia
5 captured, 5 released

Somalia
1 captured, 1 released

Sri Lanka
1 captured, 1 released

Sudan
13 captured, 7 released, 6 killed

Sweden
1 captured, 1 released

Switzerland:
2 captured, 2 released

Syria
1 captured, 1 released

Turkey
4 captured, 2 killed, 2 released

Total non-coalition captured:
139

Total non-coalition killed:
32

Total captured:
205

Total killed:
55
 
Kayak said:
You missunderstand. It is not poll numbers. Learning who or what type of person is more likely to attack you is just good survival sense. You cannot be telling me that soldiers come back, by enlarge, with no concept of the political or social situation in the area where they were stationed. The guys who walk the streets would be insane not to try to develope some idea of this. That is what I mean.

An attack can come from any direction at any time. That is the reality. A woman can be a suicide bomber as well as a man can. You cant physically distinguish who a shiite is from a sunni just by looking at them. Our people are only there for a tour, so its not like they know who would be out of place in a community and who wouldnt.

Bottom line, you use the same security measures irregardless of being in the Sunni triangle or in a shiite area.
 
Back
Top Bottom