The Iraqi Insurgency - Who Are They and How Many?

[Scribbler1]

How can you be an insurgent against a foreign occupier?

Insurgent: one who revolts against authority.

The United States has to establish themselves as the authority in order for the citizens of Iraq to be called insurgents. One question, why can't the people of Iraq be called freedom fighters against such an authority as the United States?

We are there, we have guns and we're shooting up the place. That smells like authority in my book. If the resident government isn't telling us to get out then we ARE the authority.

[ise]

To kill a man at any distance with an M-60 can easily require 60 rounds or more on full-auto. We got into a firefight with a tree once. Thought a bird was a sniper. We were a tad nervous. I have no idea how many rounds were expended to unleaf that tree.

did the tree die. would this be a real case of 'dead wood'. or was it a case of dead tree standing. is this why you are isherwood. "Thought a bird was a sniper." what bird would that be then. the last do do. they didn't fly. i cannot type without giggling.

[Scribbler1]

Wow! Was that SUPPOSED to make sense?

[rmnunez]

You are no doubt aware that the US military has been crediting much of the growth of the insurgency to the arrival of "foreign fighters" while claiming that the insurgency was losing local support.

No, I haven't heard of any military reports on the insurgency growing, the only ones saying this are critical lefties. It seems they think the outrageous occupation is very provocative and would draw people naturally to fight the foreign forces. I have my doubts as, despite this insurgency growth we haven't witnessed much of an uptick in the military casualty rate (which has remained fairly constant at an average of 2 per day for the past couple of years).

Turns out neither is true. The insurgency is almsot exclusively home grown and is growing.

It would be difficult for the Coalition to appreciate any domestic growth in the insurgency, given that they haven't witnessed any new fronts, offensives, major deployments or higher casualty rates from the insurgents. However, to the degree the Coalition exercises some control over foreign access to Iraq, they could detect any growth in foreign arrivals.

[Boetie]

Scribbler1 posts:
We are there, we have guns and we're shooting up the place. That smells like authority in my book. If the resident government isn't telling us to get out then we ARE the authority

So we go kill, set up a puppet government that isn't going to tell us to get out and declare ourselves the authority. How democratic.

[RickSp]

We are there, we have guns and we're shooting up the place. That smells like authority in my book. If the resident government isn't telling us to get out then we ARE the authority.

Particularly is we own the resident government.

Nevertheless, resisting a foreign invader does not necessarily make one an insurgent. It usually depends who wins. The victors usually determine the labels.

[Scribbler1]

So we go kill, set up a puppet government that isn't going to tell us to get out and declare ourselves the authority. How democratic.

Never said it was. I just call 'em like I see 'em.


And that's part of the big picture. I don't think we ever SAID we were the authority so if you just go by what the administration says the authority is the new government and not us. Which would be nice if it were true, so we could wash our hands of that headache.

[ise]

We are there, we have guns and we're shooting up the place. That smells like authority in my book. If the resident government isn't telling us to get out then we ARE the authority.

:confused:

Wow! Was that SUPPOSED to make sense?

piddling old men lose their sence of humour just before their mental facilities - if they had any of either in the first place.

i'm sure you would claim that neither apply to you, scribbler, but do you remember a joke.

I just call 'em like I see 'em.

i'd get that seen to. :) , man.

[Boetie]

Scribbler1 posts:
Never said it was

I never said that you said it was, that was my remark, hey

So once again, how democratic.

[rmnunez]

I don't see why this authority thing has to be an "all or nothing" proposition, the government of Iraq has some authority. They have the authority formally transfered to them by the Coalitioneers, they have the authority their representative nature endows after a democratic election, they have the authority custom and practice grant them. All of that authority is not enough for some, but any limitation does not mean complete subordination either.

Ultimately, as Mao said; "power grows from the barrel of a gun", so the Iraqis will have sovereignty and authority over their own affairs to the degree they can field a credible military force. They depend for this on the Coalition so these will be able to moderate any transfer of power. With the difficulties from the insurgency there is a need for the Iraqis to deploy more credible military forces and the Coalition is working on their training. It looks like the insurgency may help accelerate Coalition withdrawals since they will train more Iraqis for the military and this will be reflected in a more authoritative government in Iraq which will sooner ask the foreigners to leave.

[northtexan]

But the perception insurgents, not animated by patriotism, are reacting in a 'natural' way, outraged over "infidels on their land", suggests it would be 'normal' to travel often thousands of miles to foreign countries to confront an "enemy" ascribed that condition merely because of his religious faith. It seems a rather fundamentalist perspective to me.

No, they're reacting in a natural way, fighting for what they perceive as the best interests of their own communities -- and that includes opposition to foreign occupiers. And that opposition is not just to 'infidels' -- Iraq suffered quite a lot under occupation by the Turks, even though the Turks are Muslim. There is pent-up outrage at occupation by foreign powers, infidel or not. The ironic thing is that so much of Iraq will likely come under the influence of another Islamic, but non-Arab, country: Iran.

No, I haven't heard of any military reports on the insurgency growing, the only ones saying this are critical lefties. It seems they think the outrageous occupation is very provocative and would draw people naturally to fight the foreign forces. I have my doubts as, despite this insurgency growth we haven't witnessed much of an uptick in the military casualty rate (which has remained fairly constant at an average of 2 per day for the past couple of years).

Well, don't bother us with your lack of knowledge. Are you with 'death throes' Cheney or 'could be 12 more years' Rummy? Oh, or maybe you're itching to become 'body count' LBJ. Tell me, do you see light at the end of the tunner? If so, get off the track, because that's a freight train rushing at you. You could end up at best an 'we have everything under control' Westmoreland (wincing at a nearby explosion).

It would be difficult for the Coalition to appreciate any domestic growth in the insurgency, given that they haven't witnessed any new fronts, offensives, major deployments or higher casualty rates from the insurgents. However, to the degree the Coalition exercises some control over foreign access to Iraq, they could detect any growth in foreign arrivals.

LOL! You mean like when they secured the borders after the invasion? Not! Or do you mean when they've tried to move on the borders and become involved in hot firefights, generally outraging local populations whose settlements are destroyed in the fighting? I doubt that those incompetents in charge in Iraq could detect an RPG flying into their headquarters, much less 'foreign arrivals.' Even the Saudis are griping about how the Bushistas have bungled it in Iraq; even Republicans in Congress are starting to do so, for that matter. And the American people have begun catching on, in spades.

Particularly is we own the resident government.

Nevertheless, resisting a foreign invader does not necessarily make one an insurgent. It usually depends who wins. The victors usually determine the labels.

Well, the Bushistas think they own it. They even got it to propose a constitution putting control of Iraqi oil in U.S. hands. But the Bushistas are increasingly learning that they helped into power a resident government that will be owned body and Shia soul by Iran.

And if the victors determine the labels, then it is futile for Americans to debate the labels.

I don't see why this authority thing has to be an "all or nothing" proposition, the government of Iraq has some authority. They have the authority formally transfered to them by the Coalitioneers, they have the authority their representative nature endows after a democratic election, they have the authority custom and practice grant them. All of that authority is not enough for some, but any limitation does not mean complete subordination either.

Ultimately, as Mao said; "power grows from the barrel of a gun", so the Iraqis will have sovereignty and authority over their own affairs to the degree they can field a credible military force. They depend for this on the Coalition so these will be able to moderate any transfer of power. With the difficulties from the insurgency there is a need for the Iraqis to deploy more credible military forces and the Coalition is working on their training. It looks like the insurgency may help accelerate Coalition withdrawals since they will train more Iraqis for the military and this will be reflected in a more authoritative government in Iraq which will sooner ask the foreigners to leave.

The government will have the authority that can be upheld by the militias of the various factions making it up. The Kurds will govern themselves, thank you, and they'd better be left alone to do it. The Shia will likely suck up more and more to Iran. And both of them will hold on to their control over oil, so as to pay their way when they can't win it by force of arms or stronger allies. Meanwhile, the Sunnis will have no stake in peace or democracy or even stability, because under any scenario involving such things, they lose everything.

I do agree that Coalition training of Iraqis will ultimately lead to our being told to get out, if we haven't had the sense to leave already -- we will be told so by the very militias that we have trained behind the facade of 'the Iraqi military.'

[xyzer]

I do agree that Coalition training of Iraqis will ultimately lead to our being told to get out, if we haven't had the sense to leave already -- we will be told so by the very militias that we have trained behind the facade of 'the Iraqi military.'

Are you suggesting that we don't want to get out of there? The conditions have pretty much been explained i.e. as soon is there is an established government, a constitution, a defense and police force we are out of there.
No time frame has been released because its obvious that it would affect the actions of the resurgent terrorists and the surrounding countries assissting in their employment.Syria and Iran to be more specific.