So now it's been one year since Saddam was captured (Dec. 13, 2003) outside of Tikrit. At the time of his capture it seemed the Coalition forces were actually getting somewhere; a year later and it seems that we have been treading water.





BBC News Article


Questions:

Has the capture of Saddam dealt any type of blow to the insurgents? Why/Why not?

By removing Saddam and capturing him, have we made any progress on the WoT, and have we made any appreciable progress in "liberating Iraq"?

Why hasn't any state of normalcy return to Iraq since Saddam's capture, as predicted?

Has the capture of Saddam dealt any type of blow to the insurgents? Why/Why not?

The insurgents are not in Iraq to place Saddam in power, but the insurgents goals are to prevent Iraq from becoming a democracy. Democracies are too progressive for the Middle East. A form of government that allows individuals rights, including women, would change the face of the Middle East. The insurgents are trying their hardest to prevent that, and as the elections near, we shall see in increase in fighting to prevent the elections.

By removing Saddam and capturing him, have we made any progress on the WoT, and have we made any appreciable progress in "liberating Iraq"?

The progress we have made on the WoT is to bring forth the true intentions of the terrorist. The world should open its eyes to see that the reason for the killings is not to kill Americans, but to remove 'western' ideals for the middle east. These ideals will destroy life as it is know in the middle east, and may ultimately bring peace to a region of the world who for the last twenty plus years has not had a day without violence against innocents; a day without a terrorist attack.

Why hasn't any state of normalcy return to Iraq since Saddam's capture, as predicted?

The lack of security. Under Saddam, people lived a life of fear. Afraid to speak their mind and walk out of their house. With the removal of Saddam, came the removal of the fear. And an increase in grabbing for power from Saddam.

What state of normalcy should return? The one where 6 million Iraqs were killed and even more were tortured on a regular bases? The one where people lived in fear? I think it is wrong to say that there was ever normalcy in Iraq under Saddam. There was never a time period in Iraq where it was okay to be in Iraq.

I guess I needed to know what is a state of normalcy that was their prior to the Iraqi War.

I'm not entirely sure what Major General Odierno would define as "normal", but I am sure that he's not defining it to mean pre-Iraq war. I would venture to say that he means a calm state, which was supposed to happen after Saddam was ousted and captured, and has thus far been illusive. A state in which an attack or death is uncommon, rather than expected.



I think this is an interesting statement, are you saying that the insurgents are fighting simply to stop democracy, or to keep Iraq as it was before the invasion?

Has the capture of Saddam dealt any type of blow to the insurgents? Why/Why not?

I'd say empirically no blow was dealt. Clearly, the insurgency does not require Saddam to function effectively.

By removing Saddam and capturing him, have we made any progress on the WoT, and have we made any appreciable progress in "liberating Iraq"?

Capturing Saddam was one of the manifold goals stated by the administration, thus by capturing him, a goal was achieved. If "progress" is defined in terms of measurable milestones and if Saddam's continued evasion was an impediment to achieving one milestone, then we can say his capture made progress in Iraq's "liberation". I believe, though, that the important milestone was Saddam's flight from power rather than his actual capture.

Saddam's capture was an excellent PR coup. It made the US feel good about what it was doing to Iraq. It provided a single easily recognized (and despotic) person on whom the US could vent its righteous indignation.

In terms of progress on the WoT, that's really a whole other debate. Certainly, terrorist attacks have been on the rise since his capture; the insurgency has grown since his capture. A reasonable metric based on this data suggests that the WoT is not progressing but rather regressing.

Why hasn't any state of normalcy return to Iraq since Saddam's capture, as predicted?

Simply put: wishful thinking and PR. The administration would not have stated to a TV audience that Saddam's capture would make little difference as far as the insurgency is concerned. Similarly, the administration won't state that elections will make little difference as far as the insurgency is concerned. As long as these tidbits are held out as the next "solution" to the problems, people will continue to "invest" in the lemon which is Iraq.

Lastly, no one in the administration is taking personal responsibility for misprognostications of Iraqi normalcy. There is an attitude of keeping fingers crossed and hoping for the best. The solutions are always just 6 months to a year away, that somehow time is all it takes, that somehow the insurgents will burn themselves out or all be killed. The actual data belies that position, and I find it disturbing that no one in the administration will own up to it.

I am under the impression that the insurgents are not fighting for Saddam. Saddam has been captured and in prison. If these insurgents were fighting for Saddam, they would have demands like "Free Saddam or we will behead this man."

Instead the insurgents are saying "America get out." What happens if America gets out? What will that mean? First of all there would be less security for the Iraqi people. Groups from all over the Middle East will come to Iraq fighting for control over the worlds oil and the Iraqi people. Secondly there will be no protection. Iraq as of now is too weak to stand on its own. It has a small military and a small police force, both of which are targeted daily by the insurgents. With the only people willing to put their lives on the line to protect the Iraq people being so small in number the nation is too weak to protect itself from invaders. Thirdly, without security and protection there is no freedom. Without freedom there is democracy.

Agreed. Most insurgents are likely glad to be rid of Saddam. However, this does not mean there aren't ex-Ba'athist insurgents who wish to regain their lost power.


Since the insurgency is not monolithic, I believe that there are many "meanings" to a US withdrawal. Imagine from an insurgent's perspective:

1. Power vacuum

No US means plenty of opportunity to gather power. There must be many insurgents who desire this either directly or indirectly: certainly, the ex-Ba'athists as well as the opportunistic potential warlord/mafia types.

2. US killing civilians

At least some of the insurgents must object to the Iraqi civilian death count. Some may believe that only Iraqis should be killing Iraqis. Some may believe that had the US not invaded the number of civilians dead would be less than under Saddam. Regardless, a US withdrawal means no more civilian deaths by the US.

3. Majority government means Shi'a empowerment

Sunnis have something to fear from this. Shi'as have something to gain from this. Sunnis fear reprisals; Shi'as want blood justice.

4. Puppet government

I imagine that many insurgents believe that no matter the outcome of the Iraqi election the real power will remain within the US.

5. Secular government

There must be some insurgents who desire an Islamist theocracy. There's likely a division between Shi'a and Sunni as to who is the most "theocratic".


Your points are well-taken. I believe that there must be many, if not a majority, of Iraqis who see this. However, I believe that these are not the insurgents and that there are insurgents who desire exactly this.

Excuse me?

Do you have any evidence of this? Or when you say "people", only a small percentage?

Because for the most part, that is not true. Not even close. It's true that Saddam was no nice guy, but his type of rule kept 3 violent factions from warring with each other and their neighbors, and the general chaos we see right now. So, as long as you weren't part of Saddam's version of insurgents (when Saddam was in power), you generally had nothing to worry about. And compared to some other Arab countries, they had LESS to worry about. They were not secular, women had more rights than any Arab nation in the middle east, and if it weren't for sanctions, they could have been the closest nation to what we're trying to beat them into now.

I think what you say is true NOW. And Saddam is not in power - we are.

Do you have proof?

You can not attack someone for not have proof and then not provide proof or evidence to back your position.

Yet I can say I have proof that gave me the views I have. The recent documentary, entitled "Voices of Iraq" which can be found at www.voicesofiraq.com or can be rented from netflix, or can be seen in theaters across the US. In the documentary they passed out 150 cameras to Iraqi's and received 400,000 hours of footage directed, written and starring the people of Iraq. In the documentary you see both sides those pro Saddam and pro democracy, this is my views of the Iraqi people based upon the words spoken by the Iraqi people.

So, again I ask, where is your proof?

Has the capture of Saddam dealt any type of blow to the insurgents? Why/Why not?

By removing Saddam and capturing him, have we made any progress on the WoT, and have we made any appreciable progress in "liberating Iraq"?

Why hasn't any state of normalcy return to Iraq since Saddam's capture, as predicted?


When Saddam was pulled out of his hole in the ground he stated "You didn't win the war, the war is not over yet" (source). Turns out he was correct about the war not being over yet. The insurgency was planned before the invasion (sources :1 2 3) and that is why he made the statement he did. Top military commander's believe the Ba'thist's are the primary force behind the insurgency (sources :1 2 3) being directed primarily from Syria (source). Saddam is one man supported by an infastructure of tens of thousands of other people in his security forces and intelligence agencies. Capturing Saddam was merely a physicological blow to the insurgency who primarily do not view themselves as fighting for the return of Saddam so it wasn't really a blow at all (short of the money and intelligence gained from his capture).

There is no central command that oversee's the insurgency. There are elements that, according to intelligence officials, play a major role of the insurgency that have ties to the Ba'thist party. These are considered the most dangerous elements of the insurgency. Most of the cells do take commands from various factions. It wouldn't surprise me if the insurgent that stated "I am fighting for my country — not Saddam Hussein — to get rid of the infidels. Very few people are fighting for him. They gave up on him at the end of the war" (source) is actually receiving targets, money and weapons from a former Ba'thist or someone with connections to them. The insurgents do not have one person calling all the of shots. But a command structure does exist within the various factions. The person who decides to fight the "evil zionists" doesn't simply pick up a gun and shoot at US soldiers. They meld into the underground to find other's that are taking up "the cause". They wouldn't last long without weapons, supplies, money, and guidance which the former Ba'th party and their "allies" are willing and ready to supply. Many of the insurgent attacks in Iraq are coordinated. These aren't simply a bunch of mob's gathering randomly, there is plenty of coordination, supplies, money, recruiters, and if you want to be an effective force training. The illusion that the insurgency does not have a nerve center, or any type of command structure, is just that -- an illusion. Given there are various gangs that operate independently they normally have connections to those with the money or other underground factions. It consist's of a chain of people and connections. An insurgency cannot be effective without money, training, logistical support, weapons, organization, and a "higher up" to recommend effective target's. In Iraq these are splintered into different organizations with their own causes joined together by a common enemy. With that coordination come's a viable target to destroy. Without that coordination the insurgents would fail miserably rapidly so it's a catch 22 for them. The best they can do is keep those ties buried with the smallest amount of people knowing about them as possible. That's why they are not fighting for the Ba'thist's -- they are simply receiving money and weapons (or weapons stash locations) from them or people with connections to them joined together by a common enemy. The insurgency is a desperate extension of the tactics Saddam used to rule the population before the government was overthrown. Fear, assassinations, and murder of those that opposed the former government with stronger alliances and a further exploitation of Jihad against the "evil zionists".

While it is true that the killings of Iraqi civilians further enrage the population and fuel the fire of the insurgency the same is true for the other side of the coin. The more the insurgent's kill Iraqi's the further they enrage the population to fight them which can be seen on the ground (sources :1 2 3 4 5).

Has the capture of Saddam dealt any type of blow to the insurgents?

None.


Why/Why not?

Because by removing Saddam's base of power, the coalition created a vacuum that no single political entity can fill and this has given rise to numerous small, well armed gangs each with their own agenda.


By removing Saddam and capturing him, have we made any progress on the WoT, and have we made any appreciable progress in "liberating Iraq"?

None what so ever. Saddam Hussein was not involved in the international terrorists who's actions started the 'War' on terror.

That any one can claim otherwise, for me, is ample proof that there is no such thing as this 'War' on terror. Iraq has been a war of convenience where by the USA has used Islamic terrorism to justify attacking Iraq and attempting to subjugate the middle east to an American agenda


Why hasn't any state of normalcy return to Iraq since Saddam's capture, as predicted?

Predicted by whom? By Rumsfeld? The reason why none of Rumsfelds predictions have come to pass is two fold I believe. The first is because Rumsfeld and his fellow neo cons based their assumptions on the information provided to them by Achmed Chalabi who was an Iranian agent.

The second, is because Donald Rumsfeld, in his arrogance, ignored the advice of the US military planners when they advocated using a military force three times larger than was eventually deployed. Since the get go, the US occupation has had to contend with man power problems that were only exasperated by the fall of Baghdad.

The true problem here lies with Rumsfeld. When Saddam Hussein's regime, weakened by years of sanctions, collapsed in the face of the original US blitzkreig, then Rumsfeld made numerous comments to the effect that he had been correct in his assessment of how many troops would be needed to oust the former dictator. However, as we soon saw, the US troop numbers were insufficient to maintain the peace and the looting that took place after the fall of Baghdad was tolerated as 'normal behaviour'. In fact, such behaviour should never have been tolerated. The US forces allowed hospitals and ministry's to be looted and burned and from that original chaos came the lac of respect that has swelled into the insurgency.

The war was won with Rumsfelds smaller force, but the peace was lost. The state of normalcy never returned because there never was any such thing in Iraq.

Please back up your statment in this thread. The thread I posted demonstrate's a single drop in the bucket of the evidence publicly available that Saddam had connection's to terrorist's. Ive yet to have a single person back up there claim in which I have asked repeatedly in other threads that make the same claim for them to back up their assertion in the "Saddam, UBL and WMD's, No connection?" thread. Yet the thread still has 0 responces. For you to claim that "Saddam Hussein was not involved in the international terrorists" is ample proof that many in the anti-war crowd conveniently ignores the evidence of connections to rationalize their stance.