| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Today we see news of a bomb in Baghdad that killed Iraqi children and adults.
Why are the Iraqi insurgents targeting their fellow-citizens? Does that seem like a way for them to win support?
The following is from William Truax, a Major in the USMC on the Multi-National Corps staff in Baghdad. It was written before, but is relevant to, today’s bombing in that city.
He argues that the insurgents are attacking their fellow Iraqis precisely because they are losing the popular support of the Iraqi people.
...[the recently published National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq], along with the car bombings and kidnappings in Baghdad in the past couple days are being portrayed in the media as more proof of absolute chaos and the intransigence of the insurgency.
From where I sit, at the Operational Headquarters in Baghdad, that just isn’t the case. Let’s lay out some background, first about the “National Intelligence Estimate.” The most glaring issue with its relevance is the fact that it was delivered to the White House in July. That means that the information that was used to derive the intelligence was gathered in the Spring – in the immediate aftermath of the April battle for Fallujah, and other events. The report doesn’t cover what has happened in July or August, let alone September.
The naysayers will point to the recent battles in Najaf and draw parallels between that and what happened in Fallujah in April. They aren’t even close. The bad guys did us a HUGE favor by gathering together in one place and trying to make a stand. It allowed us to focus on them and defeat them. Make no mistake, Al Sadr’s troops were thoroughly smashed. The estimated enemy killed in action is huge. Before the battles, the residents of the city were afraid to walk the streets. Al Sadr’s enforcers would seize people and bring them to his Islamic court where sentence was passed for religious or other violations. Long before the battles people were looking for their lost loved ones who had been taken to “court” and never seen again. Now Najafians can and do walk their streets in safety. Commerce has returned and the city is being rebuilt. Iraqi security forces and US troops are welcomed and smiled upon. That city was liberated again. It was not like Fallujah – the bad guys lost and are in hiding or dead.
You may not have even heard about the city of Samarra. Two weeks ago, that Sunni Triangle city was a “No-go” area for US troops. But guess what? The locals got sick of living in fear from the insurgents and foreign fighters that were there and let them know they weren’t welcome. They stopped hosting them in their houses and the mayor of the town brokered a deal with the US commander to return Iraqi government sovereignty to the city without a fight. The people saw what was on the horizon and decided they didn’t want their city looking like Fallujah in April or Najaf in August.
Boom, boom, just like that two major “hot spots” cool down in rapid succession. Does that mean that those towns are completely pacified? No. What it does mean is that we are learning how to do this the right way. The US commander in Samarra saw an opportunity and took it – probably the biggest victory of his military career and nary a shot was fired in anger. Things will still happen in those cities, and you can be sure that the bad guys really want to take them back. Those achievements, more than anything else in my opinion, account for the surge in violence in recent days – especially the violence directed at Iraqis by the insurgents. Both in Najaf and Samarra ordinary people stepped out and took sides with the Iraqi government against the insurgents, and the bad guys are hopping mad. They are trying to instill fear once again. The worst thing we could do now is pull back and let that scum back into people’s homes and lives.
So, you may hear analysts and prognosticators on CNN, ABC and the like in the next few days talking about how bleak the situation is here in Iraq, but from where I sit, it’s looking significantly better now than when I got here. The momentum is moving in our favor, and all Americans need to know that, so please, please, pass this on to those who care and will pass it on to others. It is very demoralizing for us here in uniform to read & hear such negativity in our press. It is fodder for our enemies to use against us and against the vast majority of Iraqis who want their new government to succeed. It causes the American public to start thinking about the acceptability of “cutting our losses” and pulling out, which would be devastating for Iraq for generations to come, and Muslim militants would claim a huge victory, causing us to have to continue to fight them elsewhere (remember, in war “Away” games are always preferable to “Home” games). Reports like that also cause Iraqis begin to fear that we will pull out before we finish the job, and thus less willing to openly support their interim government and US/Coalition activities. We are realizing significant progress here – not propaganda progress, but real strides are being made. It’s terrible to see our national morale, and support for what we’re doing here, jeopardized by sensationalized stories hyped by media giants whose #1 priority is advertising income followed closely by their political agenda; getting the story straight falls much further down on their priority scale, as Dan Rather and CBS News have so aptly demonstrated…
“Both in Najaf and Samarra ordinary people stepped out and took sides with the Iraqi government against the insurgents, and the bad guys are hopping mad. They are trying to instill fear once again.” That’s the money quote.
If you have questions for Bill, I can forward them. He writes “Feedback is always welcome, though I can’t promise an immediate response….”
(Hit Tip to Sal.)
#1
#2more people support the insurgents than the american troops.
That is not correct. Check the poll results here and here.
More civilans get killed by amercan troops every month than insurgents.
Do have any links to support this?
why demonise a culture that just want to repel you out of its domain?
Do you approve of the 9-11 attacks and the 7-7 London bombings?
#3more people support the insurgents than the american troops.
>
you said its not true but a series of polls have been conducted to ascertain the position of the Iraqi
public further on the insurgency and the Coalition occupation. A poll in late
2003 showed that about one-third of all Sunni Arabs are staunch supporters of
the guerrillas and consider armed attacks on occupying forces acceptable. In
al-Anbar province, which includes the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi, solid
support for the Iraqi insurgency stood at 70%. Only about 10% of the Shiite
Arab population supported violent insurgency. Support was very minimal for
attacks on coalition forces among the Kurds. Curiously, the poll (which was
supposed to cover an even distribution of the Iraqi population) showed more
people stating that they are Sunnis (44%) than Shiites (33%), leading to
speculation that the poll's sample was skewed. [13]
(http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/03/30/2003108502). The poll
was also conducted before the spring 2004 occupation crackdown on the
insurgency in Fallujah and the fighting in the Shiite heartland.
In another instance, in late January and early February 2004, a joint statement
was distributed in leaflet form by a dozen insurgency organizations vowing to
take control of Iraqi cities after occupation forces withdraw, and portraying
the U.S's planned withdrawal as a defeat. Iraqi civilians' reaction to the
statement were reported to vary widely, from being "hailed as the manifesto for
a legitimate resistance movement" to being dismissed "as mere bravado."
A later poll (March-April 2004) found that 80% of Iraqis distrust the
occupation
authority and 82% disapprove of the presence of coalition military forces
there.[14]
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22403-2004May12.html)
U.S./Middle East historian Juan Cole assesses the recent outcome of the Najaf
standoff of August 2004 as follows: The Americans (becoming more unpopular) and
the Allawi government (viewed more as the indecisive neo-imperialist's puppet)
are losers. Sistani has gained nationalist credentials as a national hero
saving Najaf. Muqtada has neither lost nor gained. His southern cities slums
movement is intact, even with a weakened paramilitary. [15]
A Zogby poll in January 2005 found that 82% of Sunnis and 69% of Shiites want
the US occupation to end. The poll also found that over 50% of Sunnis "believe
that ongoing attacks in Iraq are a legitimate form of resistance."[16]
(http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=957)
this is from a site full of information rather than dogma and politics
(http://www.answers.com/topic/iraqi-insurgency)
>
> More civilans get killed by amercan troops every month than insurgents.
>
>
The figures, based on records from Iraqi public hospitals released by the Iraqi
Ministry of Health, are here:
Conflict-related civilian deaths in Iraq. July 2004 to January 2005
3,274 Total civilians killed
2,041 by coalition and Iraqi security forces
1,233 by insurgents
12,657 Total civilians wounded
8,542 by coalition and Iraqi security forces
4,115 by insurgents
some links too
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/iraq25e_20040925.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4217413.stm
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Official_figures_didn't_show_60%25_of_dead_Iraqi_civilians_were_killed_by_coalition_forces,_says_BBC
I asked why demonise a culture that just want to repel you out of its domain?
> Do you approve of the 9-11 attacks and the 7-7 London bombings?
You make your own world. take responsibility for who you are and what you do.
you reap what you sow. You cant expect blow up twin towers in lebanon for no
good reason, and expect nothing to happen. you pissed off osama. he took the twin towers in america down because of the symbolism. symbolism that subverts the republican party line that there was no motivation for 911 but morbidity. you got pissed off at osama after that.
when you make war in other peoples
contries and kill people for no good reason the world becomes a fucked up place. whose fault is it? They didnt
have the self control to react peacefully and neither did you. the passion that
arises in people when you kill their kin is overrriding. just remember who
instigated this war you are hell bent on perpetuating. Rise above it. this is all osama bin laden wants from you. he said that your security is in your own hands. he says any country who does not attack will not be attacked. he doesnt say anything about a war of cultures. bush tried to make it into that. its not meant to be that way. dialogue will get you where more death won't. just live and let live. peace brothers.
#4The formatting is wrong but not that the stats are above each category not below ie 2041 civilians killed by coalition troops and 1,300 or whatever by insurgents
#5A poll in late 2003 showed that about one-third of all Sunni Arabs are staunch supporters of the guerrillas and consider armed attacks on occupying forces acceptable.
But you didn't claim a majority of Sunnis support the insurgents -- you claimed "more people support the insurgents than the american troops." It is established that the majority of Iraqis opposed to Democracy are Sunnis. Not only that -- one-third is not a majority. Your evidence does not support your claim that a majority of Iraqis support the insurgents.
A later poll (March-April 2004) found that 80% of Iraqis distrust the occupation authority and 82% disapprove of the presence of coalition military forces there.[14]
We don't want to be there either. GWB has stated that the goal is to see Democracy in Iraq, not for our troops to remain in Iraq. Disapproving the presence of coalition forces is not the same as supporting the insurgents.
Do you really propose to argue that the majority of Iraqis were happier living in danger of being raped and tortured by Hussein? All those purple thumbs shown by Iraqis risking their lives to vote in free elections prove that is not the case.
Regarding your stats on deaths of civilians, your own link debunks them. Quoting from the BBC article you linked:
On Saturday, the Iraqi ministry of health issued a statement clarifying matters that were the subject of several conversations with the BBC before the report was published, and denying that the conclusion could be drawn from the figures relating to military operations.
It stated that those recorded as killed in military action included Iraqis killed by terrorists, not only those killed by coalition forces or Iraqi security forces; and that those recorded as killed in military action included terrorists themselves, and Iraqi security forces.
Regarding the final point, you state that you approve the 9-11 attacks and the London bombings. I do not doubt your statement on that.
Let me ask you a question. Do you support the oppression of non-Muslims in Muslim nations?
#6The year is 2005. Times have changed since the elections.
The boston globe reports that 45% of all iraqis support the insurgency and 15%
support the current government. This information came from an iraqi poll.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/06/10/insurgency_seen_forcing_change_in_iraq_strategy/?page=2
The weakness of the government,
unable to provide reliable electricity, clean water, jobs and security, has
culminated in a loss of faith and support for the government. after all, iraq
is a destroyed state.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the support for the
insurgency is thriving. A key indication of this support can be seen in the
rising efficacy of the insurgency, which as you probably know, like all guerilla wars draws upon radicalised civilians. As you may have noticed at the start of the war the insurgency was pathetic. The insurgency in like all guerilla wars has only really managed to get anywhere since its support was established. The people
are the power base of the insurgency. The vibrancy of the insurgency is dependant on grass-roots support. In all guerilla wars you must win the support of the people. and the insurgents are miles ahead of the government
Iraq excites me because I was a keen history student, and I learned a lot about
fundamental human truths. Bush wants to refute history. This is a lesson for
him, and all those others who missed out on education.
to say iraqis are happier the way things are now compared to the way they were is ridiculous. Saddam hussein ran a brutal police state, no doubt. but if you didnt get on his bad side life was pretty good. people had jobs, free food, free petrol, water, electricity, and security. life for an iraqi today is hell.
people turning out to vote doesnt mean they are happy and free. 82% oppose living in an american military police state, much more than opposed
saddam. 45% are actually behind the insurgency now, which is derived from the
baath party and 18% support the government. Democracy always prevails, my friend. The will of the people will determine what kind of govenrment will survive. The people choose their destiny.
Its not our place to tell them what they want.
They rose up agaisnt saddam
following the gulf war and were repressed. The movement didnt have enough
support. They would have rid themselves of saddam back then if they wanted it
bad enough. now they rise up with the same party that repressed
them. I guerilla warfare people choose the governemnt or the insurgency
The iraqi ministry of health stated that those recorded as killed in military action included Iraqis
> killed by insurgents, not only those killed by coalition forces or Iraqi
> security forces; and that those recorded as killed in military action
> included insurgents themselves, and Iraqi security forces.
Well that spin just doesnt cut it. do you really think the dominant mode of
insurgent fighting has progressed to conventional warfare? This is a guerrilla
war dude. These people cant fight a conventional war until the war machine gets
worn down. It seems to be shifting into that phase this week, but its only
rarely that that occurs. I've kept the keenest eye on any sort of transition
into that final phase of the guerilla war, and it was attempted prematurely in
fallujah, but since then i'd have to say they learned their lesson and went
back to bombing. I think i've seen just about every report on conventional
engagements since the war started, and I'd have to say there have only been a
few hundred killed in total, and a few dozen for the time period concerned. its
just insignificant, to say it contributed is one thing but how much? the
insurgents arent engaging in any significant conventional warfare. at this
stage it would be suicide, and they know a suicide bomb is far more effective.
Do I approve of 911?
I dissaprove of the 9-11 attacks, and the war. I'm no hypocrite.
Hypocrasy only pays off in the short term. If america was a good international citizen it would be responsible for its actions. It
should abide by international law, respect human rights and intervene when
appropriate. It intervenes only when it has something to gain.
The war on terror is just another way to avoid responsibility, it started with americans
killing civilians for thier own selfish intersts. Why fight for that 'right' ?
A war on terror, a war on crime, a war on crime are unacceptable. War gives
licence for people to do horrendous things to other people they wouldnt
normally do. So much is lost, human rights and human lives.
as someone who belives in democracy I oppose the actions of the bush
administration, and hope that one day they are accountable for their actions,
as we all should strive to be.
Make love not war.
#7The boston globe reports that 45% of all iraqis support the insurgency and 15%
support the current government. This information came from an iraqi poll.
The article you link appears to be referring of 45% of Sunnis, not of Iraqis:
A major reason why the insurgency has remained so undeterred, US and Iraqi officials believe, is the continued, if passive, support it is receiving from large parts of Iraq's Sunni minority.
Specialists say they believe Iraq's estimated 5 million Sunnis fear that the country's government, dominated by Shi'ites and Kurds, will exact revenge on them for decades of Hussein's brutal rein. There are only 17 Sunni members in the 275-person Iraqi National Assembly.
Meanwhile, a recent internal poll conducted for the US-led coalition found that nearly 45 percent of the population supported the insurgent attacks, making accurate intelligence difficult to obtain. Only 15 percent of those polled said they strongly supported the US-led coalition.
The notion that 45% of non-Sunni Iraqis support an insurgency which has targeted and killed hundreds of them, appears to be unlikely.
to say iraqis are happier the way things are now compared to the way they were is ridiculous. Saddam hussein ran a brutal police state, no doubt. but if you didnt get on his bad side life was pretty good.
Again, by risking their lives to vote in free elections, and proudly showing their purple thumbs, the Iraqi people proved that what you say here is false.
I see you support a government that rapes, kills, and tortures its civilians. Could it be that you would like to see the whole world ruled by an Islamic government of this nature?
You didn't yet answer my question: Do you support the oppression of non-Muslims in Muslim nations?
Well that spin just doesnt cut it.
It came from your link.
I dissaprove of the 9-11 attacks
That's not what you said yesterday:
> Do you approve of the 9-11 attacks and the 7-7 London bombings?
You make your own world. take responsibility for who you are and what you do.
you reap what you sow.
...this is all osama bin laden wants from you. he said that your security is in your own hands. he says any country who does not attack will not be attacked.
It's a little late to be changing your tune now.
#8Do you understand what this means?
‘A recent internal poll conducted for the US-led coalition found that nearly 45 percent of the population supported the insurgent attacks, making accurate intelligence difficult to obtain. Only 15 percent of those polled said they strongly supported the US-led coalition’
The population. It contains several ethnic groups. ‘The population’ does not mean sunnis alone. Where does it say that only sunnis were polled. it says the population ie. they didnt just ask sunnis, and who would? whats the point in just finding out the opinion of sunnis? wouldnt you be more interested in the opinion of the whole population?
The above quote is the only reference I can find to the poll, and as it explicitly states that the population, not just a minority of it was surveyed, its ridiculous to pass it off as refferring to sunnis.
In iraq right now, unemployment is insanely high, there are water and electricity shortages, there is no security, people are rioting in the streets and yet people in america like saraf can tell them its better for them. Living in a destroyed state, under occupation, disillusioned by the sham elections, in which people didnt even know the names on the ballot paper, and the hand picked candidates that were elected can be kicked out at any time by the american military. Only the hard line saddam haters prefer hell on earth over saddams iraq. and that taxi driver whould endure 5 years of it. How many years are remaining? for many people, these last few years are enough, they are tired of the occupation. They consider it patriotic to resist the occupation.
#9This is the paragraph that comes right before the one that you quote:
Specialists say they believe Iraq's estimated 5 million Sunnis fear that the country's government, dominated by Shi'ites and Kurds, will exact revenge on them for decades of Hussein's brutal rein. There are only 17 Sunni members in the 275-person Iraqi National Assembly.
It appears that in context, the 45% refers to 45% of Sunnis.
You keep making the preposterous claim on behalf of the Iraqis that they actually prefer "saddams Iraq" -- that is, a life ruled by a government that raped, tortured and killed them at will. Even you won't believe that if you think about it.
The poll results already cited document that your view is not correct.
You haven't yet answered my question: Do you support the oppression of non-Muslims in Muslim nations?
#10You keep making the preposterous claim on behalf of the Iraqis that they actually prefer “saddams Iraq”... The poll results already cited document that your view is not correct.
Could you please point me to the specific poll question which you believe proves this? Thanks.
#11The 45% refers to 45% of Sunnis?
It doesnt. Everyone I have asked about that document is convinced the population means the population. the survey doesnt mention sunnis. They werent surveying the sunni members of
the 275-person Iraqi National Assembly. Thats not the context, its a different paragraph. they werent surveying just sunnis, or
they would have said so. In fact, they said they were surveying the population.
You seem to have this terrible stumbling block where you oversimplify the
situation along ethnic lines. the insurgency is composed of both sunnis and shiites,
including the shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who has his own irregular army,
and is actually also supported by a large proportion of the iraqi security
forces. they americans working with these symathetic troops and handing control
of bases and installations to them are essentially handing the power to thier
enemy. This is causing severe tensions and rifts between american troops and
security forces.
To suggest that only sunnis support the insurgency is patently ridiculous. There
is such a large shiite following behind Moqtada al-Sadr that it may even
outnumber the sunni elements of the insurgency. Despite ethnic divisions,
iraqi's are united in their desire to regain thier soverignty. The insurgency
is about nationalism, not petty ethnic divisions.
>
> You keep making the preposterous claim on behalf of the Iraqis that they
> actually prefer "saddams Iraq" -- that is, a life ruled by a government
> that raped, tortured and killed them at will. Even you won't believe that
> if you think about it.
>
you think they arent killed, tortured and raped by the government in power right
now? If you think they arent, you're living in a fantasy land. you'll never
understand what will transpire in iraq because your view that it is a beautiful
democrasy that will be realised if we continue to sacrifice american and iraqi
blood is untenable. If the population was behind it, it would have already been
realised. Under saddam at least people had jobs, electricity, water, petrol and
security. there was the rule of law.
I'm sure every iraqi who left iraq because of saddam will tell you anythings
better then life under saddam. If you got on his bad side I'm sure his methods
were just as cruel as the ones being carried out right now. but unlike the
present situation, if you didnt go out of your way to make trouble you were
free to live your life. where's that freedom now? What kind of lives are people
living over there?
> You haven't yet answered my question: Do you support the oppression of
> non-Muslims in Muslim nations?
>
I answered it a long time ago. no.
And I definitely do not support america's military invading other countries
under false pretenses and causing terrible losses in civilian lives for no
benefit to anyone. The pre war talk about the oil 'gush' that would ensue can
never be realised, as iraqi's will never let you steal thier oil. so you dont
benefit. and you seem to think they do. Well whatever makes you feel warm and
fuzzy inside. Dream on man.
#12Everyone I have asked about that document is convinced the population means the population. the survey doesnt mention sunnis.
The standard of evidence is not what people you ask agree on. At best all that can be said is that the article is ambiguous on this, which means it does not prove your point. It's your link, and appears to be the only poll you can site to back up your assertion that Iraqis preferred "saddams Iraq."
you think they arent killed, tortured and raped by the government in power right
now?
Do you have any evidence to support this?
if we continue to sacrifice american and iraqi blood
"We"? Up until now, when you referred to coalition forces, you said "you":
you pissed off osama. he took the twin towers in america down because of the symbolism. symbolism that subverts the republican party line that there was no motivation for 911 but morbidity. you got pissed off at osama after that.
You support Hussein's government:
If you got on his bad side I’m sure his methods
were just as cruel as the ones being carried out right now. but unlike the
present situation, if you didnt go out of your way to make trouble you were
free to live your life. where’s that freedom now? What kind of lives are people
living over there?
"Where's that freedom now?" Are you seriously arguing there was freedom in Iraq under Hussein? Where a soccer player could be jailed for yelling at a referee?
Akram: look, I was seriously afraid when I was playing, they were really horrible days under Uday, I was afraid to do anything that might be misunderstood and the result would be the jail.
Now, I feel free when I play soccer, I feel that I’m playing to improve myself and never afraid of anyone.
A: So you feel that you are free now?
Akram: of course free.
You seem to be making statements that have no supporting evidence.
> You haven’t yet answered my question: Do you support the oppression of
> non-Muslims in Muslim nations?
>
I answered it a long time ago. no.
You never replied to this question before. It appears that many of your assertions are made with no supporting evidence.
#14In response to the question you link to, it appears to me that the referenced posts are quite self-explanatory. If you have a question, you'll have to be more specific.
#15You said that poll results disproved the notion that Iraqis preferred Saddam's Iraq over their current situation. I followed the links you provided, but it was unclear to me which results you believe prove your point.
Could you please point to the specific poll which you believe proves this specific point?
#16Tom, I get too many comments on this site to write articles on request.
#17Why would iraqi's prefer a government that is even more repressive than saddams and put in place by a hostile occupying force? Saddams repression was at least targeted, people were living under a police state but not under martial law
They get all the torture and injustice they can handle with next to no security, jobs, electricity, or water. Its totally disfunctional
It seems to me that whenever you have a coup not instigated by the people that the new government is even more repressive than its predecessor. Maybe its an issue of legitimacy. How can it be legitimate in the eyes of iraqis? The people in government were in bed with the CIA before the invasion
#18Why would iraqi’s prefer a government that is even more repressive than saddams...
You're just making this stuff up. You can provide no documentation to support that.
Do you people even realise what is going on in iraq? more people support the insurgents than the american troops. More civilans get killed by amercan troops every month than insurgents. Right from the start this was a guerilla war, funded by the baath secret service, thats why they took control over the economy by taking all the cash and went underground instead of fighting a conventional war.
What is this islamofacist term? why demonise a culture that just want to repel you out of its domain? 95% of all suicide bombings committed in the last 20 years have had the sole objective of repelling an occupying democracy out of the bombers territory. This is the explicit aim of the iraqi insurgency, its about territory and soverignity not some collision of cultures. The dogma on this site is really getting out of hand. If you want to back it up try and find out the nature of the situation, because as it is, your dogma is outside of reality and it makes it pathetically weak.