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

[Sidhe]

I saw the Arab map.

lt resembled a mare shuffling on,

dragging its history like saddlebags,

nearing its tomb and the pitch of hell.


Ali Ahmed Said, Syrian Poet

I see Iraq myself as a little bit of history repeating from the occupation and forceful support of government under the British to the present day. I wont get in the way of your colourful arguments about the military. But I do find the history somewhat interesting, if anyone wants to get a view from pre 21st century this link might explain a little more political depth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Iraq

Three important anticolonial secret societies had been formed in Iraq during 1918 and 1919. At An Najaf, Jamiyat an Nahda al Islamiya (The League of the Islamic Awakening) was organized. Al Jamiya al Wataniya al Islamiya (The Muslim National League) was formed with the object of organizing and mobilizing the population for major resistance. In February 1919, in Baghdad, a coalition of Shia merchants, Sunni teachers and civil servants, Sunni and Shia ulama, and Iraqi officers formed the Haras al Istiqlal (The Guardians of Independence). The Istiqlal had member groups in Karbala, An Najaf, Al Kut, and Al Hillah.

The grand mujtahid of Karbala, Imam Shirazi, and his son, Mirza Muhammad Riza, began to organize the insurgent effort. Shirazi then issued a fatwa (religious ruling), pointing out that it was against Islamic law for Muslims to countenance being ruled by non-Muslims, and he called for a jihad against the British. By July 1920, Mosul was in rebellion against British rule, and the insurrection moved south down the Euphrates River valley. The southern tribes, who cherished their long-held political autonomy, needed little inducement to join in the fray. They did not cooperate in an organized effort against the British, however, which limited the effect of the revolt. The country was in a state of anarchy for three months; the British restored order only with great difficulty and with the assistance of Royal Air Force bombers.

Ath Thawra al Iraqiyya al Kubra, or the Great Iraqi Revolution (as the 1920 rebellion is called), was a watershed event in contemporary Iraqi history. For the first time, Sunnis and Shias, tribes and cities, were brought together in a common effort. In the opinion of Hanna Batatu, author of a seminal work on Iraq, the building of a nation-state in Iraq depended upon two major factors: the integration of Shias and Sunnis into the new body politic and the successful resolution of the age-old conflicts between the tribes and the riverine cities and among the tribes themselves over the food-producing flatlands of the Tigris and the Euphrates. The 1920 rebellion brought these groups together, if only briefly; this constituted an important first step in the long and arduous process of forging a nation-state out of Iraq's conflict-ridden social structure.

Not making any point K, just like the circular historical implications, apreciate the logic of the situation now and then.

 

[MobBoss]

For your information, most American casualties are not from small arms fire. A vast majority of them are from IED's... most of the time nobody is shooting.

I have no reason to not believe this, but the fact itself does not change my point of view in any way.

I actually find it hilarious you have pegged yourself into the position that soldiers should stay ignorant, when you know, and I know for a fact, that is not what the brass wants.

Not at all. I have never said soldiers should remain ignorant. What I have said is that for soldiers the matter of telling who an insurgent is, is simplified by the issue of said insurgent trying to kill your ass. Whether more soldiers die from gunfire or from IEDs still does not change the question of "Just WHO is the insurgency". Whether the insurgent is killing you with an IED or from sniper fire it makes no difference. You cant just automatically assume people you meet on the street ARE or ARE NOT insurgents. Your actions must remain the same regardless. The only real discriminator is in the action they are taking against you. An insurgent could be smiling at you in the morning and placing IEDs at night.

 

[Neomega]

What I have said is that for soldiers the matter of telling who an insurgent is, is simplified by the issue of said insurgent trying to kill your ass.

What about when they do neighborhood sweeps. Do you think the ony people they are arrestiong are people who shoot at them, or are laying IED's?

Whether more soldiers die from gunfire or from IEDs still does not change the question of "Just WHO is the insurgency".

Sure it does. IF this were a small arms fire war, a la WW II, it would be easy, teh guys in gray on the other side of the hedgerow are the badguys.

Whether the insurgent is killing you with an IED or from sniper fire it makes no difference. You cant just automatically assume people you meet on the street ARE or ARE NOT insurgents.

But if you are told insurgents come from Iran and Syria, then you could be lulled into a false sense of security, if no-one in the neighborhood reports any people with strange accents.

Funnily, when you know how much sympathy their is for the insurgency, amngst Iraqis, that means you know how reliable your "all clear" intelligence may be.

Every soldier needs time to let their gaurd down. After a couple of months it is physically impossible to be on "high alert at all times"

Your actions must remain the same regardless. The only real discriminator is in the action they are taking against you. An insurgent could be smiling at you in the morning and placing IEDs at night.

You know, you are just arguing for arguments sake, you are spitting out truths like they support your original claim that "knowing who the insurgency is is easy" and then you say something like this. This statement here proves it is not so easy to know who the insurgency is.

So go ahead and waste more time trying to back up your claims with counter-proving statements, and re-explaining what you said so then you end up contradicting something else you said. You are only arguing reactively, and forgetting what you were arguing about in the first place.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Why don't you just come out and say what you are hinting at?

I say nonconformist is in a search for the truth, and a good idea of who the insurgency is, and what motivates them. You are insinuating he has some agenda. Why don't you just state this agenda you are accusing him of having, instead of dancing around and defending a non-point?

Eh ? What I guess you don't realise is that I have a lot of time for noncon, basically agree with him on a wide range of subjects, and am broadly in sympathy with him in this area. Also, perhaps because I'm not that frequent a poster, you may not realise that I don't tend to insinuate - if anything I'm too blunt & critical. Noncon does tend to like his Independent, and the style of giving a large number of statistics leading people to a certain conclusion is taken straight from there. Which is fine, but I don't know what he's trying to prove with that part - nor even if he realises that he's being selective with his stats.

Now, if you don't mind, will you please get off my case, and stop bugging me ? My original question was for noncom, and when you quoted me and criticised me, I tried to explain where I was coming from. Since you clearly don't understand what I'm trying to say (or since I clearly can't explain my p.o.v well enough - whichever way round, I don't care) I don't see what either of us can get out of this exchange.

P.S. "insinuating" - that's a nice, value loaded word, isn't it ? "accusing", that's another one. Noncon gets to be a searcher for truth, and I'm an accusing insinuator I do love all these balanced, even handed terms...

 

[Neomega]

I answered the question for nonconformist... he was seeking the truth.

Truth. plain and simple, not "implicitly (and perhaps subconciously) directing us down a particular interpretation of the insurgency."

 

[Lambert Simnel]

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.

Ah, c'mon, don't be so coy. To put it another way, your opinion or view is interesting, and it doesn't automatically equate to "bias". As MobBoss says,

To me, it would appear that he has "cherry picked" his data in order to support a hopeless/negative outlook on the war.

You've got an opinion (and I'd expect it's less simplistic than MobBoss gives you credit for), you have selected certain stats and not others, and the detailed background you've given on the various groups involved hints at a decent level of understanding of the situation - why not share your opinions ? Maybe, just maybe, we'd be interested to hear it

 

[Lambert Simnel]

I answered the question for nonconformist...

That's so kind of you. Now if you don't mind, I'd like to ask the question to noncon.

 

[Neomega]

That's so kind of you. Now if you don't mind, I'd like to ask the question to noncon.

Post on a public forum get a public reply. If you have a question you only want nonconformist to answer, you can PM him.

 

[cgannon64]

What's the point of this thread?

 

[blackheart]

What's the point of this thread?

To answer "Just who IS the Insurgency?"

 

[MobBoss]

What about when they do neighborhood sweeps. Do you think the ony people they are arrestiong are people who shoot at them, or are laying IED's?

They arrest people for questioning for a variety of reasons. That doesnt mean they are automatically an insurgent if they are arrested. Many people are brought in, questioned and then simply released as there is no reason to hold them.

Sure it does. IF this were a small arms fire war, a la WW II, it would be easy, teh guys in gray on the other side of the hedgerow are the badguys.

This IS a small arms fire war. All the enemy has are IEDs and small arms. Thats it. No armor assets. No real artillery outside of small mortars. No planes. No navy.

As you so clearly pointed out, in WWII you could tell who the enemy was by his uniform. Not the case in Iraq where the insurgents wear local dress. How, then to identify them? Largely, they go un-identified until they shoot at you or someone rats them out and you catch them with red handed with IED supplies.

But if you are told insurgents come from Iran and Syria, then you could be lulled into a false sense of security, if no-one in the neighborhood reports any people with strange accents.

Strange accents? Iraq is only about twice the size of Idaho. Do you think say, someone from Idaho thinks that someone from the next state over has a "strange" accent? Hardly.

Every soldier needs time to let their gaurd down. After a couple of months it is physically impossible to be on "high alert at all times"

Sure there are times to relax. When you are in the contonement area in your billets you can "relax" as much as you can. My boss, who was over there for a year, says that you get fairly used to the mortar rounds going off. He says you get to where you can tell how close they were by the noise.

However, bear in mind that even going to the shower you still have to take your weapon and body armor - going and coming. You step out of a building - you put it on. Period.

You know, you are just arguing for arguments sake, you are spitting out truths like they support your original claim that "knowing who the insurgency is is easy" and then you say something like this. This statement here proves it is not so easy to know who the insurgency is.

My point is in this case you have no true idea who the insurgents are until they attack you. They dont wear uniforms. In one aspect, sure its hard to tell who an insurgent "could" be. In another, once they start firing at you, it becomes more than evident exactly who the insurgent is.

The bottom line a soldier walking a patrol can either drive himself crazy to the point of paranoia wondering who the insurgent is OR he can just simplify it by relying on his training and not worrying about it until someone starts shooting at him. A soldier on patrol has to make it that simple or else the odds of them being a fatigue casualty rise exponentially.

So go ahead and waste more time trying to back up your claims with counter-proving statements, and re-explaining what you said so then you end up contradicting something else you said. You are only arguing reactively, and forgetting what you were arguing about in the first place.

Nope. I have explained my point of view quite well and have not contradicted myself at all. If you are not bright enough to pick up what I am saying thats not my fault.

 

[nonconformist]

Ah, c'mon, don't be so coy. To put it another way, your opinion or view is interesting, and it doesn't automatically equate to "bias". As MobBoss says,

Hello, I'm back.

I'll tell you what my motivation, as it were, to make this thread was.

I'm tired of people regurgitating lies, half-truths and misconceptions about Iraq, so now there is absolutely no excuse to repeat them.

The sort of things I mean are:

-the Insurgency is comprised almost exclusively of foreign Jihadi fighters
-The majority of Insurgents belong to Al Quaeda
-Insurgents always target civilians
-The Iraqis do not support the Insurgency
-The Iraqis want an American presence
-The Insurgents are all radical Shria Islamists who want to destroy the west.

 

[MobBoss]

-the Insurgency is comprised almost exclusively of foreign Jihadi fighters

Not a premise I have been reading in this forum. Do you allege that there are no foreign insurgents in Iraq?

-The majority of Insurgents belong to Al Quaeda

Nothing in the stats you gave seem to indicate otherwise.

-Insurgents always target civilians

No one alleges that they target civilians exclusively. However, even you should admit that they do kill far more civilians in their attacks upon them than military targets.

-The Iraqis do not support the Insurgency

A majority do not support the insurgency and I would be willing to bet that the 45% figure you gave from July 05 has gone down if such a poll were conducted today as a lot of the more recent "insurgent" activity has been to destroy the mosques of both sunnis and shiites in order to foment ill will between them.

-The Iraqis want an American presence

If the duly elected and recognized government of Iraq wanted the Americans out all they would have to do is say as much publicly. We wouldnt have a leg to stand on in trying to stay - we would HAVE to leave. That being the case, I humbly submit that this item is most likely true despite your not wishing it so.

-The Insurgents are all radical Shria Islamists who want to destroy the west.

I somehow dont think they want to sip sherry with us and be all warm and cuddly.

 

[Xenocrates]

Mobboss; you're doing one heck of a job!

Put Iraqi Liberals on the list and we'll all be happy!

I think the OP has demonstrated that 'the insurgency' is diverse. I really didn't think that anyone could argue about that but they obviously have one thing in common; that they are fighting. I guess that's enough to 'justify' clumping them all together. From the soldiers point of view that kind of makes sense. It doesn't really matter in the short term why they are shooting at you!

But the signs are that you'll be in Iraq for a long time so trying to understand the 'enemy' isn't a bad idea.

 

[blackheart]

No one alleges that they target civilians exclusively. However, even you should admit that they do kill far more civilians in their attacks upon them than military targets.

A majority do not support the insurgency and I would be willing to bet that the 45% figure you gave from July 05 has gone down if such a poll were conducted today as a lot of the more recent "insurgent" activity has been to destroy the mosques of both sunnis and shiites in order to foment ill will between them.

If the duly elected and recognized government of Iraq wanted the Americans out all they would have to do is say as much publicly. We wouldnt have a leg to stand on in trying to stay - we would HAVE to leave. That being the case, I humbly submit that this item is most likely true despite your not wishing it so.

MobBoss, you missed the point of the thread altogether. You just lumped all insurgents into one group and assume that they all have the same goals, and all Iraqis are either for or against, which isn't the case.

"Duly elected and recognized government of Iraq?" Right, that's why its being split apart at the seams.

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss, you missed the point of the thread altogether. You just lumped all insurgents into one group and assume that they all have the same goals, and all Iraqis are either for or against, which isn't the case.

Once again, I merely point out that there are several layers to this question. I give a common soldiers point of view. You dont want to accept that, fine. But I am telling you, a grunt on patrol doesnt care if the guy shooting at him is a baathist, a shiite, sunni or whatever OR what his motivation is or his ultimate goal. Those ruminations are for the generals and politicos to figure out.

 

[blackheart]

Once again, I merely point out that there are several layers to this question. I give a common soldiers point of view. You dont want to accept that, fine. But I am telling you, a grunt on patrol doesnt care if the guy shooting at him is a baathist, a shiite, sunni or whatever OR what his motivation is or his ultimate goal. Those ruminations are for the generals and politicos to figure out.

This isn't WW2 where there's one enemy to fight, and only shooting to do. It's the 21st century and American soldiers now need to be trained to do more than just shoot at targets. That's the point you're missing, the foot infantry's main goal was extended beyond search and destroy type missions, they must now make friendly and study the local populace because right now with the occupation, they are an integral part of the country. No longer can they remain aloof in a strictly tradionational grunt role.

 

[MobBoss]

This isn't WW2 where there's one enemy to fight

FYI, in WWII we didnt just fight the Germans. We fought the Japanese, the Italians, Vichy French and a wide selection of minor countries that also supported the Axis nations.

and only shooting to do. It's the 21st century and American soldiers now need to be trained to do more than just shoot at targets. That's the point you're missing, the foot infantry's main goal was extended beyond search and destroy type missions, they must now make friendly and study the local populace because right now with the occupation, they are an integral part of the country. No longer can they remain aloof in a strictly tradionational grunt role.

I dont disagree with that at all. Soldier engineers have built a lot of schools and hospitals in Iraq and a lot of the infrastructure as well. I agree that soldiers need to be helpful to build relationships to the local populace. This leads into lessening support of the insurgents and gaining support in information of possible insurgent activity. I humbly submit that most of the weapon caches we find are due to information given our forces by locals. This wouldnt happen without local support and good will.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

@ Non Con
I know why this thread has developed following the programme regarding the insurgency on the BBC and, knowing your politics I can understand why you've gone to such lengths to prove your point.

The problem you have is that when anyone posts statistics in support of a point on CFC you get the same old "Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics" posts. This puts posters in the Catch 22 situation of either failing to support your point or basing it upon faulty stats.

The "stats can lie" argument is too easily made if you ask me and is just a nice easy way of failing to address the point of the post.