It seems we have the guerilla warfare we hoped we wouldn't have when we started the war in Iraq. The only places we don't have this problem is in the various no-go zones where the rebel forces rule the land and we stay out of.

But who are these "rebels"? Most call them insurgents. Many call them terrorists. Some call them freedom fighters.

However, I don't know what to call them after realizing a startling fact - these are the people who have had nothing to do with this war. These people were not working with Al Qaida before we invaded (and since only 2% of the fighting force is foreign, I doubt they are now). They did not have WMD. They never invaded their neighbors. Of all the things we accused Saddam of that turned out to be "inaccurate", the people we are fighting now had nothing to do with anything.

Yet we are at war with them and trying to kill as many of them as possible? Why?

I don't believe they are terrorists as they target our forces and the groups that support them (police, security forces, etc). Innocents get killed in the process, but after 10,000 -12,000 innocents that we've killed going after military targets, that would be the pot calling the kettle black. Of course, the exceptions are the purveyors of beheadings.

I believe they are people who are against an occupying force for whatever reason. As if China invaded us with a million troops because our imperialism was a threat to the world, so we should adopt their way of life because they are convinced it is better. Every one of us would be taking up arms against that invading force.

So, the questions for debate are:

Who are we fighting in Iraq?

How are the people we're fighting on a daily basis linked to the Global War On Terror?

Who are we fighting in Iraq?

I think there are three primary groups we are fighting in Iraq:

1. The remnants of the Saddam regime. The Republican Guard, instead of fighting, blended into the populace. They are now fighting back. They need to be defeated.

2. Various groups trying to fill the power vaccuum. This includes al-Sadr's militia. They think they can grab power in Iraq by killing and bullying others, ala Saddam. They need to be defeated.

3. Terrorists, who are largely foreign. Iran is funding and backing terrorist elements in Iraq. Iraq issues threat to Iran over insurgents



A stable Iraq which is pro-US is a bad thing for Iran. This group is probably the most brutal and probably the one responsible for killing Iraqi civilians. They are less interested in obtaining power and more interested in chaos. They certainly must be defeated.

How are the people we're fighting on a daily basis linked to the Global War On Terror?

The third group, the ones responsible for bombing Iraqi civilians, are certainly terrorists.

Stepping back, the stability of Iraq will (theoretically) provide an environment where Middle Easterners can experience a democracy. This is an anathema to the terrorist goal of a pan-Arab Muslim state.

Who are we fighting in Iraq?

The locals among terrorists. This Chicago Tribune article is an eye-opener.





It's not the whole picture. It's a decent gauge of shifting attitudes on both sides, Marines and Iraqis, that could spell more hostilities from both ends in the future.

How are the people we're fighting on a daily basis linked to the Global War On Terror?

The insurgents in this article aren't terrorists. To call them terrorists would require new characteristics and broadening the definition of the word.

Perhaps in that article, but from the nature of the attacks in Iraq, a lot of them (perhaps the once who perpatrate most of the attacks) are terrorists.

I believe their motives can be best described as attempting to drive the entire country of Iraq into chaos and fear.

That is who we are fighting, and Amlord is right, they must be defeated. These are not people pursuing rational policy goals.

They are murderers who use a deeply cynical strategy to gain their end. Not to be negotiated with.

Who are we fighting in Iraq?

Those who take aid workers hostage (like the two Italian women), and murder them, are terrorists. Likewise, the ones who bomb the Red Cross, UN building, and community water supply pipes would fit the profile of terrorists, IMO (and of course, their victims go towards the tally of “American-killed innocents” DR mentions).

The others are a combination of mostly:
1) Unemployed civilians who are paid to plant bombs and/or fight (and don’t like Americans so have no moral qualms with doing so).
2) Different factions which wish to obtain power after driving us out. A direct example would be the recent goings-on in AlSadr city. Iraqi National Guards were searching the area and many houses for the mortars and RPGs. Muqtada’s men didn’t want their weapons confiscated, so they went into the streets and fired on the ING. Those men weren’t “resisting Americans and their ING supporters”, they are vying for eventual power.

How are the people we're fighting on a daily basis linked to the Global War On Terror? Most of them aren't, but we need to ensure security for the population of Iraq (or at least try to), and back the ING and baby Government until it gets up to the challenge, or things improve, or we can get other Muslim countries to help out so we can leave.

But what have THEY done to deserve our wrath?

What were they doing before the war that justified a prolonged war with them now? There is no state military we are fighting. There is not even a state leader in charge of these people. They were for all intents and purposes, minding their own business and guilty of being ruled by Saddam Hussein. Now they are paying for that with their lives.

If these Iraqis were not a weapons threat, not linked with Al Qaida, and had nothing to do with 9/11 or international terrorism, why are they our enemy? Because of them or because of us?

Are we killing them to impose our way of life, or are they the enemy we were looking for when Bush said, "Bring 'em on"?

The "they" we are speaking of are the insurgents. They are guilty of the purposefully murdering civilians of all kinds and sabotaging the future (and present conditions) of 25 million Iraqis.

They are the greatest threat to a peaceful, stable, and free Iraq. That's the crime they are guilty of.

If you believe this to be true, turnea, then doesn't the symmetry principle apply? Can't the US occupation be justifiably accused of killing civilians? Or is this a moral relativist argument where our principles apply only to them and not to us?

This is a bit of a tangent to the topic so I'll be brief and try to relate what I'm saying to the question.

No, the former occupation forces in general were not involved in the purposeful murder of civilians.

Not only that but their efforts were clearly aimed at creating stability and prosperity for Iraq. The aims of the insurgents are exactly the opposite.

That is why the enemy we fight is the enemy of the Iraqi people.

Arguments of semantics aside I'm more disturbed by the seeming lack of cooperation from non-insurgent Iraqis by withholding tips that may prevent killings. If it's a question of non-insurgents fearing for their lives how are conditions to improve by keeping the onus to thwart such tactics and ensure the peace on us supposed to improve their safety?

If non-insurgents don't care enough to act what does the majority really want? The lack of concern Marines feel are evident in the article doesn't foster a cautious approach on the operations end. I don't blame them.

Eh? When did the US withdraw? As for purposeful vs. accidental, I think this is an easily debatable point but definitely off-topic. Nevertheless, as far as people getting killed are concerned, Iraqis are dieing at the hands of the US occupational authority. Iraqis are dieing at the hands of insurgents, terrorists, etc. From an Iraqi point of view, this is all for the best?


I'll agree that at least some insurgents desire chaos. Other insurgents want stability but with the US out and to gain power as well. Opportunists are kidnapping Iraqis for ransom (and they aren't even considered insurgents). There are no simple answers here. The simple fact is "justifiable civilian casualties" do not endear the Iraqi public to the occupational authority.

The insurgency is not monolithic. There is not just one agenda. And all evidence suggests it is growing. The non-monolithic nature of the insurgency is politically advantageous to the insurgents as a whole because one cannot blame all insurgents for all insurgent-related activity. On the other hand, the US occupational authority is a monolithic entity (or perceived that way), thus any individual member is blamed for the actions of the authority as a whole (and vice-versa). I know this isn't necessarily a rational belief people hold, but it appears to be a natural one.

So more topically, the US is fighting many different insurgencies. There are many agendas that are likely at least in partial conflict. It just happens that the insurgents all agree on one primary thing: kill Americans. My bet is that not all insurgents agree that killing Iraqi police, etc. is correct. But, they do agree on this one thing: America is bad. The more Americans are killed, the weaker the US occupational authority appears to be; thus, the more emboldened the insurgents become and the more their ranks will swell.

Keep in mind that insurgents (or any fighting force) fall into three broad categories: active fighters, support personnel and sympathizers. It is the latter category which is the most insidious. These are the folks who look the other away making counter-insurgency very, very difficult as you can't just kill everyone.

Short answer. Yes: evidenced by the fact that most Iraqis (according to the latest scientific poll of the nation) do not want coalition forces to leave just yet.

Long Answer:

1. The occupation is over. The term occupation only applies when a foreign power has political control over a territory. The Occupation Authority (known as the CPA) ceased to exist in June.

2. Iraqis are dying at the hands of the coalition, but the goal of the coalition is to remove the threat to Iraqi society that exist among these civilians. They do take considerable care to target only those that threaten the Iraqi people and themselves.

Seeing as we could simply bomb offending provinces to rubble, I think this is clear.

My description of the aims of the insurgency is indeed a generalization. But with the frequency of attacks on Iraqi police, infrastructure and civilian targets, I think it is safe to infer that a great many insurgents are after chaos and not the well-being of the Iraqis.

Yes, we usually aim for the ones bombing the power stations.

Who are we fighting in Iraq?

Amlord's assessment is a good one, and it's echoed in Healing Iraq, which is not a non-biased source, but it's certainly an interesting one because it's written by an Iraqi blogger in Baghdad. He describes the insurgents as being within three groups.



How are the people we're fighting on a daily basis linked to the Global War On Terror?

The second group are clearly terrorists, and thus they are directly linked to the Global War On Terror, but the first and third are only linked in the sense that a stable Iraq is less likely to become a hotbed for terrorists.

It can be said that Iraq would not have become a hotbed for terrorists if the United States had not invaded, and that may or may not be true, but at this moment in time, finding stability in Iraq is certainly a goal that's compatible with the war on terror.

So, if China invaded us for the purposes of regime change (a credible argument could be made that George Bush is a danger to the world), we would be guilty of opposing the occupation forces and thus, deserve to die?

There seems to be a clear double standard. As I said, they were "guilty" of nothing before we invaded.

And if you are truly suggesting we are not the occupying force, I have some oceanfront property here in Ohio I can sell you cheap. Please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting the transfer of power transferred anything. We still call the shots and you know it.

They have responded to our violent incursion into their country with violence of their own. Whether or not any of the violence is justified is completely subjective. It's the same conversation that we've had a number of times. What's the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist? The answer is going to depend upon what side of the fence that you stand on.



Because they have chosen not to accept our presence and our actions in Iraq, and they are actively trying to hinder our progress there. Again, whether or not it's justified is subjective, but I'm inclined to believe that at this point in time, Iraq would be much worse off if we immediately withdrew. That opinion stands regardless of whether or not the war was right or wrong. We can't reverse the situation, so what are we supposed to do?

Do we stay and try to build a stable Iraq while fighting off the insurgents who would hinder that progress or do we pull out and let them make their own way? If we stay, I can't see that we have any other choice than to make a certain number of enemies. Unfortunately, that's just the nature of war.

From my quote above it is clear that this is not what I meant at all. I purposely left out attacks on coalition forces. I said attacks on civilians and sabotage of the lives of people who just want to live in peace. If any of us did that, then we deserve to die, correct.

Oh, I know the truth.

If you believe the US military is still running the government in Iraq, prove it.

Or find me an Ohio beach, I'll take either.

Perhaps, I should have stated my rhetorical question more succinctly. Iraqis don't want the US occupational authority to withdraw because they perceive the possibility that it will be worse if they do. At some point, assuming the insurgency continues, the Iraqis will change their position. It is simply a matter of time.

As for the semantic argument with regard to occupational authority or not, okay. How about "guests"? Yes, the US military is a guest of the host country Iraq. Tomato, tomahto.


Agreed. Those insurgents are cynically using Iraqis as pawns in a political power struggle. This is something the US would never do, correct?


Not sure what you're getting at here. Were the protesting Iraqis, killed by the US military, bombing power stations? How about the Iraqis being tortured in Abu Ghraib. The war, among other things, is a war of propaganda. It doesn't matter that infrastructure is being protected. People remember the negatives over the positives. This goes for actions taken by the "guests" of Iraq. Right now, the "guests" are considered the lesser of two evils. This will change as the insurgency continues.

More like tomato, grenade really. I've noticed that the fact that there is no longer an occupation tends to become important in Iraq debates.

..and it's to-MAY-to .

Not killing them for political gain, no I don't think that very likely.

I note you are purposefully picking the exception rather than the rule. Actions such as firing on protesters (when people in the protest are NOT firing at the troops that is) as well as torture of all kinds are aberrant and condemned practices.

The insurgents on the other hand make great, and largely unscrupulous use of worse tactics. Once one begins to understand that they are the greatest threat to a free, peaceful, Iraq their status as an enemy becomes clear.


...or rather it may change in spite of the continuing insurgency. Iraqis are not blind. Although they are products of a totalitarian state and a regional mindset that ground suspicion of the US into their consciousness, they know who the real threat to Iraq is, I'm not so sure they will forget that too soon.

Not to me...it's just a term. If the US isn't occupying Iraq, then please tell me how the soldiers can be in Iraq without occupying it? Is there some sort of new wormhole technology I'm unfamiliar with? Do they exist in some sort of pocket universe outside the boundaries of the Earth's surface? How can you be in a place while not occupying it?


Great. So, the US has stopped killing innocent civilians? Since my thesis is that the insurgency is a political struggle, then the counter-insurgency is a political response. It's the perception that matters.


I think we're talking past each other. I'm not making a statement of the actions and objectives of the US as seen by the US. I'm suggesting the perception of the US as seen from the Iraqi perspective is what matters. It doesn't matter that these are exceptions and not the rule. What does matter is that the US can be described as a brutal occupier using anecdotal evidence. I absolutely agree that fallacious reasoning is being employed, but it's difficult to be reasonable when fearing for your life. Fear is a very effective propaganda technique.


It's not a question of forgetting. It's a question of immediate reprieve from an awful situation. The trend of popular support for US "guest" status in Iraq is downward. The trend of insurgent attacks is upward. Logic dictates that these trends will continue. I believe I have more empirical justification for my position. Believe me, if the trends were reversed, I would agree with you. It's just that the reality of Iraq conflicts with the ideals one wishes Iraq to have.

Let me see if I have this straight....these people that are dying because they bomb us and mine us and shoot at us and launch missles at us...their dying when they attack us is somehow our fault? If this is really the logic, there is an extremely simple solution....stop attacking us. If you want us gone, let Iraq develop its own security forces and create a stable democratic government, and we'll go. These attacks work against their purpose if getting us out is the goal.

This entire argument is based on the assumption that these are freedom fighters, only wanting to rid the country of its occupiers. I disagree with that assumption. These people do not want us gone, they want themselves in power. That is a different animal, and is why the terrorist label that is stuck on them sticks so well. Look like a duck, walk like a duck, talk like a duck....DUCK! You can assume swan all you want, but its still a duck.

The point you seem to miss is, who is attacking who? We are in their country - not ours. We have not even been called in to help by anyone. We made that decision on our own.

Of course they are attacking us and killing our troops. And I hope our troops defend themselves with overwhelming force. But the point is, your mindset has concluded they are guilty of attacking us while ignoring the point that we are the aggressors. That is a fact. We invaded their country and many of them are just a tad upset with us. You say "quit attacking us" while the truth lies somewhere in the middle in terms of who is attacking who.

But my point is, what have they done? Before we invaded, these people were not a threat to anyone. They are not attacking us as the armed forces of a state leader. They did not have WMD, did not have links to Al Qaida, and had nothing to do with 9/11. No matter what justification you choose to use to invade Iraq, they had nothing to do with it. But now, they are our mortal enemy.

We have reserved the right for preemptive attacks, but when we park a tank in someone's front yard a half a world away, we demand constraint. Funny how that works, huh?

DR, I understand this viewpoint perfectly. However, I still find it flawed, as it is based on what is to me a flawed assumption--that being that these people are fighting us as occupiers in an effort to free their country. They don't want their country free...they want Iraq in their control. As such, we are the ones fighting for a free Iraq, they are they ones attacking that ideal. If they really, really wanted us gone, then they would stop attacking us. We are only there at the request of the Iraqi government, and only to provide security. They are the ones creating the need for our continued presence. Why? Because, as I have said, they are not fighting for freedom, but for power.



I strongly disagree. These groups were either in kahoots with Saddam's regime, or a threat to it. In either case, they were very dangerous. You think they just found all these arms and ammunition just growing on trees? Not hardly...they were armed and dangerous before we ever arrived...and, to really get to heart of the matter, they would remain armed and dangerous if we were to suddenly leave. Freedom fighters would not...that's why I don't put them in that category.

I don't believe that the insurgents are as monolithic as you would have them be, Hobbes. Isn't it possible (even probable) that some insurgents believe the only answer to American occupation is through deadly force? Afterall, the US has used and is using the engines of war to enforce its foreign policy. Also, I think that you're employing an argument assuming the ratiocination of the insurgents. Isn't it possible, even likely, that insurgents are justifying their actions based on non-rational arguments (such as anger, hate and so on)?

Let's assume though that you are correct, that the US "guests" are in Iraq at the behest of the (appointed) Iraqi authority. Do you think that matters to the insurgents? Even if it is a power struggle, don't you think it is possible that these insurgents believe violence is the most effective method to increase their power base? Each act of deadly suppression of insurgent activity by the US military increases the sympathy towards the insurgency. It doesn't matter if the US is justified or "right"; what matters is that Iraqis are being killed. And, yes, yes, yes, the insurgents are killing Iraqis as well; they don't seem to be paying the price of negative public opinion in Iraq as heavily as the US. The first thing lost in war is truth, no? Support and sympathy for the insurgents in Iraq doesn't have to be based on what the insurgents' actual goals are; it just has to be based on what the goals are perceived to be.

This is why I've been repeating over and over that the insurgency is a political and not a military operation. The insurgents can never hope to win a military victory over the US. They can hope to win a political victory though; all signs point to the insurgency doing just that.


First, the freedom fighter bit.... So, the muhajadin left Aghanistan as soon as the Soviets withdrew? Your position, Hobbes, is unconvincing to me. Just because one has a clear moral justification for one's actions doesn't mean that when that justification is removed that one won't employ other justifications for one's behavior.

Second, the arms and ammunition thing.... Perhaps, they got the arms and ammo from the same trucks which spirited away the WMD . You're right though, Hobbes, the armaments had to come from somewhere. Given that the borders are relatively porous, these arms could have come from many different locales.

Perhaps I should just let the dictionary explain...
A link to the dictionary.com definition lies below. Just like genocide, in terms of international law the term "occupation" has a specific definition.
Occupation: definition

... alright, but that is not what's up to debate in this thread. We are arguing reality, not perception.

I've already answered that... The "they" we are discussing here are the insurgents, murderers, terrorists and saboteurs.

They can only win a victory if allowed to. I, for one, don't think signs point to that at all.

Ive been saying for a while now, and will continue to adhere to the belief that a great many of those that we are fighting are Iraqi citizens. The US may not be officially occupying via international law (I didnt read your link cuz Im short on tme) but it certainly looks that way from the Iraqi worker perspective. ANYONE can pick up a weapon and kill the closest US soldier, easy. So anyone who feels threatened by tanks outside their door, bombs dropping on their neighbors and foreign military searching for their sons might have reason to do so. Their choice to kill american soldiers does NOT MAKE THEM TERRORISTS!!!! A terrorist is someone who uses defined tactics to terrorize the population of a given society. When you can't fight the government, you terrorize the people. Iraqis killing US soldiers on their soil cannot make them terrorists. Freedom fighters, sounds right, resistance fighters works fine.


The resistance in Iraq has as much to do with the global war on terror as the war in Iraq... which is nothing.

Yes, we have discussed that in this thread before. I do not call them terrorists for their attacks on coalition troops. Only for their frequent attacks attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure. For that they are certainly terrorists.

Perhaps. But their tactics make a great many of them Iraqi terrorists.

This definition works for me. Apart from the "grenade" aspects of the term, it seems to most accurately describe the situation in Iraq.


It's the Iraqi perception of reality. I don't want to get into a semantic debate with you, turnea. I've tried to make my argument clear. If you disagree with the argument, then please demonstrate this. One line retorts are not elucidating.


I think DaytonRocker's point is what had they done prior to invasion.


Do you disagree that attacks by the insurgents are increasing? Do you disagree that Iraqi support for the US "guests" is decreasing? This is what I'm basing my opinion on. If the data changes, so will my position. Since the current policy dealing with insurgents has remained relatively unchanged, then I can only conclude that the trends will continue in the directions they are moving. So, I agree that they can only win if allowed to. Thus, I must conclude based on the empirical evidence that they are being allowed to win.

Alright I'll post it to make myself clear.

The US military no longer governs Iraq, therefore this is not an occupation.

The questions for debate:

Both are objective, rather than subjective question. When I said we are debating reality not perception that is what I meant. Nowhere does it ask for "Iraqi perception of reality".

Not all trends range to infinity. Both measures could just as soon reach a threshold, seeing as a segments of opinion are likely going to remain unmoved on both sides regardless of the circumstances

But most of the bombs are killing Iraqis, not our soldiers at this point. If someone blows up a group of Iraqis going shopping, are you saying that they still aren't terrorists?
today's bombing of Iraqi civilians by a terrorist
Heard on NPR yesterday, believe that it was Allawi the Iraqi PM noting that most of the idiots blowing themselves up in car bombs were not Iraqis either. Something like 100+ out of 140 suicide bombers were non-Iraqis, based on the ones they could piece together. Would non-Iraqis blowing up Iraqi civilians in Iraq be 'terrorists' or are they also the resistance? Listening to NPR every morning, I already know the answer...

I'll take number 1 for $200, Alec. We are indeed splitting hairs here. I'll stop calling this an occupation once the US withdraws from Iraq. Until then, it is how I see it.


Are we getting into a debate of epistemology here? If you don't agree that different folks can perceive a given situation in different (sometimes diametrically opposed) ways, then there is no debate. We would share fundamentally antithetical world views. However, if you do agree that the Iraqi perception of events in Iraq can be interpreted differently from the American perception of events in Iraq, then we can have a discussion. Until then, all you're doing is playing semantic games.


This is absolutely true. However, I am not making an argument based on deduction but based on induction. Induction assumes that current trends say something about future trends. I am stating that if the policies remain unchanged, then the trends will continue. There is no absolute here; there are empirical measurements and reasonable conclusions based on them. If you wish to be a radical skeptic, then you open yourself to questions of all your positions from that framework. Skepticism is healthy; radical (i.e. Cartesian) skepticism is not.

Nope. Merely following logical rules. Sure, different groups can have opposing views, but there remains only one objective truth which those views are (hopefully) attempting to emulate.

That is to say, that if their are two contradictory answers to an objective question (such as, who are we fighting in Iraq?) at least one of them is incorrect. The point of the debate is argue over which view(s) fall into that category.

Well, so far that hasn't been demonstrated. My position at least is that the insurgency is not monolithic and therefore cannot have a binary answer. It is impossible to access the "whole" story: there are always hidden variables. The point I am making is that the data we do receive is only part of the data. It runs through our "preconception" filter as it were which colors that data in a certain way. Now, any reasonable thinker will modify their filter if the data is sufficiently contradictory but it won't happen immediately. The preponderance of the evidence must weigh in. This is for reasonable thinkers. Unreasonable thinkers will not be modifying those filters: they will likely be reinforcing them. Every act, no matter how innocuous or contradictory, can be interpreted as a confirmation of their biases.

I propose that Iraqis as a general populace must have a "preconception" filter which differs from the filter of Americans as a general populace. There can be overlap; nevertheless, Iraqis are not Americans. So, events which you or I might see one way (or similarly) may be seen in a very different way to Iraqis. The insurgents are either Iraqi, Muslim or both; the Americans are foreign and are invaders. Thus, it is reasonable to suggest that Iraqis will be biased more towards the insurgents than the Americans if only because there is commonality. Americans are biased more towards Americans, right? Why wouldn't this apply to Iraqis for Iraqis?

So, what does this have to do with the insurgency? I think we can agree that at least some insurgents are fighting the US out of a sense of nationalism (even if misplaced). Of course, some insurgents are terrorists and others are just opportunists. All insurgents can agree on one thing though: the US in Iraq is bad. So, they fight the US. Iraqi civilians are caught in the crossfire. People, be they Iraqi or American, want simple things: food, water, shelter & safety. The insurgency gives them none of those things. Ahh....well, if only they would stop fighting the US, then everything would be all right. The easy response is: if only the US would withdraw from Iraq, then everything would be all right. So, we are at an impasse. Iraqi civilians continue to die. To bring back the "preconception" filter thesis, it is natural for Iraqis to be biased towards Iraqis (and/or Muslims) even if the insurgents are killing them. Why? Because Americans are killing Iraqis as well. More insidiously, Americans are killing insurgents who are Iraqis who are then named martyrs for the liberation of Iraq.

If one were to evaluate rationally the evidence of who's being killed by whom and how many are killed, then one would likely conclude that these insurgents are mostly a nasty bunch and the Americans while not perfect are better. A rational Iraqi would concede that the US would be the lesser of two evils. As more and more Iraqis die at the hands of the US, this rational position becomes less and less compelling as the "evils" are perceived to be equivalent. However, this has moved beyond rationality for the people who are living day to day in fear. For them, the biases are reinforced. Is it any wonder that the Iraqis see the US..ahem..occupiers as the source of the problem then?

Logphage,

I find myself in the same dilemma that Turnea expressed...I think we are talking past each other. From the following quotes, I don't think we necessarily disagree on anything being debated here, but are talking past that due to our different viewpoint? of whether the war is justified or not, which isn't really pertinent to this thread, but is probably creeping into our arguments....



Some, yes, certainly. And I think for those more bent on creating their own ruling force, they can use that rationale to recruit others...but that doesn't change what their mission is, which has nothing to do with freeing Iraq from anything.



Yes, I agree completely with this.



Again, agree with this....it seems our only disagreement might still be their motivation in using these tactics..which I think is extremely relevant to the debate topic.



No, I don't think they left...that is my basic point. As to the second part here, I agree wholeheartedly....but doesn't that just back up my basic point that these people are not fighting for Iraq's freedom, but for their power, and that they'll use whatever means necessary to reach that goal. Just let me ask you straight up, logo....If the US left, do you think most of the insurgents would lay down their arms, or continue fighting to gain power? My logic says that they would keep fighting, yours would seem to have to say that they battle was won, and they'd lay down their arms, go back to their homes, and Iraq would instantly become a peaceful, stable, place. I find that scenario extremely unlikely....do you agree?



That is possible, yes...and probably where some of them did come from. The thing I was trying to get at, though, is that most of these arms were probably already there....these people were already dangerous, they were already fighting or prepared to fight....we just happen to present good targets currently.

I'll address this at the end...


That's fine. I don't disagree with this assessment. But, I think you're leaving out the part of the growing unpopularity of the US. As the US becomes more unpopular, resistance (freedom) fighters will grow in number, opportunists will grow in number, terrorists will grow in number. The solution is to find a way to stem the growing US unpopularity in Iraq. The current situation is untenable.


Hmm...well, like I've stated before, the insurgency has many factions with many goals (some being in conflict). Even if the only type of faction were opportunists (i.e. war lords), then the growing unpopularity of the US must embolden them.


Oh, yes, I completely agree. The insurgents will not lay down their arms and will continue fighting. That's why (as I've stated in other threads) I believe civil war is inevitable. The US is the focal point and recruitment poster child. In fact, we're not calling it a civil war now because the US is still the enforcer. The goal of a stable Iraq cannot be met. The mere fact that the US is in Iraq exacerbates an untenable situation. We've created a monster.

Referencing to the top quote, I don't believe my position on the Iraq invasion has anything to do with why I believe Iraq is in bad, bad shape. Or rather, I thought Iraq was going to be in bad shape should Iraq be invaded and now, unfortunately, my beliefs are bearing out. It looks like we agree on quite alot here, Hobbes. I think my cynicism is beating your idealism, though .

Logo,

Yes, we do seem to agree then... for I certainly do agree with this as well. As I have stated in other threads...saying failure is not an option is one thing...preventing failure is quite another. I think success can be achieved, but I do not think it is a foregone conclusion. However, I do think the military has been dealing with the situation as best it can....there is a fine line that must be drawn between cracking down on insurgents and using the military too frequently or too brutally...as these actions would work against the overall goal. This is why there are currently some 'no-go' areas...its not that we couldn't go in there and clean out the insurgents-- we certainly have the military capability to do that...but in areas where there are heavy concentrations, the political damage done would outweigh any military gains. So, we play the middle ground, trying to do that long enough to get an elected government and Iraqi security forces established.

I see it as quite ironic that some people deem these people "freedom fighters". The term is usually used by people who rebel against an oppressive and tyranncial gov't. Yet we want to instill a democratic and free gov't and they oppose us. See the irony? They are not freedom fighters. If they were freedom fighters they would be helping us not shooting at us.

The terrorists that are" pouring" into iraq must be dealt with and killed. Some are al-queda linked and some are iran-backed. This is a war on terror ladies and gentlemen and i would rather fight it where the army is than here on the homefront. As Allawi said in his speech, there are 18 provinces in Iraq...15 of which are peaceful and awaiting elections. There are only 3 that there is trouble. Guess which part the media focuses on? In a country the size of California, it would be as if judging the entire state by the focusing on every single act of violence in Los Angeles. Would that seem fair? I dont think so.

If that were the full extent of the situation I would agree, however this is not simply a battle between foreign troops and Iraqi insurgents. An important part of the perception is the Iraqi forces that fight the insurgents as well. Strategically they may not be as important as the coalition forces, but they have considerable propaganda value.

I have taken a look at the trends towards opposition to US forces and have noticed that though there has been some erosion in the belief that most Iraqis initially held: That is, attacks against coalition forces were unacceptable, they are also well aware that the insurgents are also targeting Iraqi civilians and security personnel. So, although support for coalition troops may drop, support for the insurgents isn't likely to see a great rise.
Meanwhile since the coalition, offensive to their sensibilities as we may well be are fighting with the supported Iraqi forces, our presence should be tolerated long enough to get the job done.

Only some Iraqis, and as native Iraqi forces are built up to combat the insurgents even the irrational Iraqi will have comfortable ground to turn to. That is to say he/she may distrust and dislike the Americans because of the ingrained fear that has been taught for generations and perpetuated by current forces. But these forces apply much less to the Iraqi forces. Even in the most recent polls, the Iraqi populace overwhelmingly condemns attacks on Iraqis working for the new government.

I agree that what is going on in Iraq now can be referred to as something of a civil war. I would point out however, that the presence of the US still has not (and will not) make it a popular one. The people of Iraq overwhelmingly desire democracy and peace. By and large they will not put that hope at risk, just to score points against "the American invaders". They will look after their own interest which, for most, means letting the insurgents fight their losing battle alone.

Okay, I have alot of return comments.


Tactically, the US military seems to be playing the middle ground. Strategically, I would disagree. The fact that there is a significant insurgency is a clear sign of strategic failure. What we're debating is how desperate it is. For "success" to be achieved, we need clear, measurable goals and we need to be absolutely honest about the failure conditions. It is my opinion that such goals/conditions have not been outlined. As much as I disagree with the invasion of Iraq, what I don't want to see is the disaster Iraq appears to be heading towards. The three types of factions I have named cannot be "tamed" in the same manner; they require different policies and strategies. Moreover, the growing unpopularity of the US must be addressed, otherwise there will be no solution (or solutions) at all.

Okay, a little side story from my personal experience. I had a boss who was a very nice guy but effectively ran the company into bankruptcy because of "failure is not an option" rhetoric. We had a piece of hardware that cost >$100K to produce per item. Upon doing analysis, I showed that it would never produce the results we needed: the design was fundamentally flawed. The analysis contained both theoretical and empirical documentation proving the assertion beyond any reasonable doubt. Instead of going back to the drawing board, he said that dumping the hardware was "not an option". Why? Well, apart from being wedded to the design, our company was very much in bed with the company who manufactured the hardware. Dumping the hardware basically meant dumping the prime partner. Politics won over good engineering. The parallel with Iraq from my point of view is uncanny.


...and some are home-grown Iraqi terrorists. Of course, some are resistance fighters and some are opportunists. There's a veritable panoply of insurgents in Iraq.

If your hypothesis is that Iraq is solely about a war on terror, you will need more than assertion as evidence. I'm sure your charitable view on where war should be fought (Iraq or the US) is shared by the Iraqis. It seems to me that this is exactly the sort of thinking that provokes otherwise peaceful people into insurgency.

So, if we just discounted, say, 3/18 ~= 15% of the US states (which would be around 8), would the results of the US election be considered fair? Are you implying that it's the media's fault for the violence in Iraq? Of course, those 3 little provinces -- one of which happens to include Baghdad, the most densely populated area -- are being reported on. ~3000 people were killed on 9/11/2001 and that's all that was reported for weeks on the news. Let's see 3000/300 million: that's 0.001% of the US population.


I agree. Iraqi forces are part of the counter-insurgency campaign. The insurgents don't buy it, of course. They see puppets being manipulated by the machinations of the US. However, the Iraqi civilian populace might buy it. In general, this is only a short-term strategy. If there isn't improvement, then the Iraqi forces will be perceived as ineffective. The will to serve in these Iraqi regiments will dry up. Keep in mind, the insurgents can play this game as well. They can offer "protection" and become legitimized as a result, i.e. warlords.


This is an interesting hypothesis which I don't share. I suppose I have a more cynical view of war and the fear it engenders. The insurgents can play off each other as well as play off the US military and newly annointed Iraqi forces. Are you willing to cross your fingers and hope your hypothesis will turn out to be true? It seems to me a better strategy is to anticipate the worser outcome.


When is "long enough"? What is the job we're doing? What do we hope to accomplish? What is the course we are staying on?


This is indeed encouraging, however condemnation of attacks does not equal support. Moreover, support can easily change. All we need are Abu Ghraib caliber scandals to arise from the Iraqi forces, or worse yet, harkening back to Saddam era torture chambers.


There are many countries in the world where by and large the people want democracy and peace, but they don't get them. They get war, genocide, famine, and so on.

One final comment to all of you I answered: thanks for the reasoned, thoughtful debate.

The LA Times reports that the US military believes that the insurgents are mostly Iraqis and not foreigners. According to the article, only about 1000 insurgents are actually foreign. The rest are ex-Baathists whose ranks are swelling due to dissatisfaction with the US...um...occupation. While the article treats the insurgency too monolithically, it basically affirms the thesis I've been offering in this thread.

Sure the armaments came from somewhere. Rather than having to invent some notional mass importation to explain how they came to be inside Iraq, though, perhaps it is easier to imagine that they came from the old Iraqi armed forces, who were disbanded (but not arrested or disarmed - certainly not of the kind of small arms and explosives that are now being used against coalition troops, Iraqi police recruits and so on).
As in so many things in this conflict, the law of unintended consequences has been the main enemy of the coalition. Which would be less of a problem if nobody had foreseen these consequences beforehand, which is not the case. The British military argued strongly against sending Iraqi soldiers home, but were overruled.

On the central question of "who are we fighting", it seems to me that everyone is agreeing that they are a mix of "classical" Wahabi terrorists, mostly from outside Iraq; Shia separatist militiamen; and a mix of Sunni militias, some of whom are Ba'athist, others just grabbing for power. In all these camps, I would assume, a variable proportion of those fighting are Iraqi, pan-Arab, or Islamic nationalists who just want "foreign" (in its broadest sense) forces off their patch.

On the semantics of "freedom" fighters, I think that you are being a little narrow in your definition, lederuvdapac. Certainly, few, if any, of the non-coalistion forces doing the shooting are fighting for "Freedom" with a capital "F" - the Western ideal of democratic individualism. But damned near all of them are fighting for the "freedom" of their country from foreign occupation/interference; their "freedom" to choose a sub-optimal "Freedom", if you will.

And on the semantics of "occupation", I agree with logophage that the subjective experience of Iraqis who see foreign soldiers in large numbers on active duty in their country has to tke precedence over a definition in a military textbook that says that an "Occupation" ends when domestic authorities take over political control. Especially when the domestic authorities in question have not (yet) been elected, but were installed by the occupying force and rely for their continued existence almost entirely on the protection of that force. France was still occupied, even under the Vichy government. If the Vichy government had held free & fair elections and been re-elected, well then maybe there'd be a case to say the occupation ended. (By the way, I am not trying to draw tired parallels between Nazi Germany and te Bush administration, just between two occupied countries where the occupying power installed a local regime, however temporarily.)

How would anticipating the worse outcome be a better strategy? The worse outcome is a popular insurgency, an outright rejection by a large portion of Iraq of a democratic central government. There would be little anyone could do at that point. Fortunately I stand by my theory, is has held so far and every time Iraqis have been asked, a clear majority of them do not want US forces to leave just yet.

1.I have no definite way of knowing what is long enough, my only estimation is that it should take no more than 1-1.5 years.

2. The job we are doing is facilitating the establishment of a democratic central government of Iraq, one that has the military strength to stay that way without our assistance.

3. The course we are following to achieve that end is one of military pressure on violent disruptive elements; assistance in infrastructure (both political, economic, and basic); as well as maintaining distance from internal Iraqi politics.

...but there is always a reason, I've had a similar discussion with UltimateJoe before I, think I'll quote my post here.


I don't think so. I (and the coalition forces) have known for a long time that the majority of insurgents are Iraqi. "Remnants of the old regime" has been a descriptive term from the Bush adminstration from day one. They have been able to pick up recruits from their old power bases in an attempt to regains control. This does not translate to a primary goal of resistance to occupation, thought that is how it's portrayed. It's a power struggle.

Oh, and if you're searching for the correct] term to classify coalition operations in Iraq, it is now military assistance, at the behest of the interim government (and with the support of a majority of Iraqis).

I try not to make it a practice to redefine words based on my opinion of their correct usage. The fact is that there is no longer an occupation, continuing to refer to it as such is a clear cut case of a misnomer, no matter what people think about it.

If most people thought a dolphin was a fish, they'd still be wrong.

Good for you, Turnea. For myself, I try not to let abstract theoretical considerations, however well-founded, override practical applications where the two are in conflict.

I guess my position is, at root, that the answer to the question

is "we are fighting people, many of whom believe, wrongly, that Iraq is under hostile foreign occupation".

Your practice might lead you to believe that the solution to this would be to parachute in dictionaries so that people can look up the correct definition of "occupation", but I doubt if that would stop anyone shooting at or blowing up coalition forces, or the various arms of the interim government that was installed by coalition forces.

What Iraqi "insurgents" (encompassing all the non-Irais th