Why are Iraqi insurgents attacking?

Great Debates
21

I’m afraid this post might end up as something of a hand grenade, but …well… right to free speech and all that stuff.

Please note, before you all get on your high horses, do not shoot the messenger, what I am doing is trying to show you that some folk have very differant views, some which I find unbelievable, others I don’t have enough knowledge to make informed comment upon, and those whose viewppoints probably need firther discussion and investigation.

I’ve just returned home having attended a PCS national union conferance, among the main motions about pay, conditions and the sort of regualr union stuff were also things such as affiliations to other groups, anti-racism, anti-homophobia and the like, and this,

http://pcs.live.poptech.coop/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=902485

National conferances of almost any large political and union or representative body also tend to have lots of what are termed ‘fringe meetings’ which represent groups that have specific issues, and often have a politcal remit that is right at the edge(or even completely off the edge of reality) of the mainstream.

(try using google with terms like - PCS conferance fringe)

One of these fringe meetings I attended was a ‘Stop the War’ meeting, for the’Stop the war coalition’

As you would expect, they had several guest speakers, they were not suficiently organised to have what would be classed as a proper meeting with agendas, motions and the like.

Among those speakers was Tony Benn, a very well known and very left wing activist in the UK(former aristocrat who gve up his title and former high level govenrment minister) and he was sharing a platform with another chap, an exiled Iraqi with no love whatsoever for Saddam Hussain apologists - for obvious reasons.

The Iraqi is Sami Ramadani

http://www.selvesandothers.org/view772.html

This chap demonstrated the differances between news reports and the actual incidents, some of these were seemingly slight, other more serious, for example, in a very recent incident, a number of Iraqis were taken out of a vehicle and shot by insurgents, many news reports stated that those insurgents were Shias and had set five people free-being Shias, and killed the rest.

The story was later changed, and the truth emerged that in fact the insurgents could not be positively identified as belonging to any faction, and that every passenger on that bus had been muredered.

Other examples of media distortion were given, the whole was to portray a particular picture, that the media was trying to show what was a low level civil war between Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds mainly and that this was a large part of the insurgency and the result was that continued US UK presence was essential to prevent things becoming even worse.

Sami Ramadani, then argued that this position was a complete fabrication, because even Iraqis themselves would not be able to identify members of another group, either by name, dress, appearance and that in fact these, so-called, competing factions had extensive family relationships being heaviy intermarried.

His case was actually, most of the inter faction killing was nothing of the sort and that the vast majority of these ‘insurgents’ were hired mercenaries and agencies linked both to company interests(many ‘techicals’ are employed by multinationals to guaruntee security) and local Iraqi units who are donning disguise.

Some news reports have stated quite plainly that at certain incidents that Iraqi Army units, controlled by US handlers, ensured that insurgents were able to withdraw safely from incidents such as the destruction of a Shia Mosque - I’m afraind I can’t remeber the name of it but it did make huge news.

The summary of his case was that the US and the UK are activly enganged in ensuring Iraq remains unstable, by not intervening when they could, or by tacitly and overtly supporting hired mercenary units, or through the proxy use of Allied trained Iraqi forces.

The whole idea is that continued instability will also provide ongoing justification for the US to keep large forces in the region to control the oil supply, and to intimidate Iran.

Now you may not agree, or you may not like what I have posted, all I’m stating here is that there is a creeping suspicion that the current ‘insurgency’ actually suits the US very well and some folk have taken this position as being the whole reason behind the alleged fighting between groups, as the idea of an Iraqi population doing nothing except trying to kill US/UK troops (instead of fighting each other)would show that the current situation is simply a US led occupation of an unwilling nation.

22

Are you kidding? State terrorism is what kept Saddam in power. The people in Iraq were so thoroughly terrified that no one dared speak against his regime. Those who did simply vanished. Sometimes families would be brought in to watch a husband tortured and murdered in front of them, or a daughter raped and murdered. Entire villages were destroyed to terrorize the population. Millions of Iraqis were murdered by Saddam’s thugs. This WAS terrorism, of exactly the sort people like Zarqawi engage in. It’s violence against a civilian population with the intent to terrorize that population and force it to do your bidding. Saddam didn’t need to use suicide bombers and truck bombs because he had secret police and tanks. But the tactic was the same, the violence the same, and the end result the same - a thug maintaining power because the people were terrified of him.

23

Back to the actual question:

There are numerous reasons for violence in Iraq right now. Not all of it is ‘terrorism’. Among the things going on there:

  1. Shia militias exacting retribution against various Sunnis for decades of oppression.

  2. Sunni insurgents trying to prevent the creation of a state which will give the Shia majority power.

  3. Sunni insurgents who want a state, but who are using violence to force the nascent state to share more power in a way favorable to them.

  4. al-Qaida in Iraq trying to prevent the creation of a democratic, pro-western state.

  5. Tribal infighting, revenge killings, and in general hostilities breaking out between various groups who have had tensions simmering for years but were kept in check by Saddam.

  6. Run-of-the-mill criminal violence. More than you would think, because murderers and thieves thrive in chaos. It’s a lot easier to get away with a murder in the confusion of war than in a calm, peaceful time.

  7. Islamist violence - groups that want the state to be a theocracy. Al-Sadr’s group being a prime example.

Note that not very much violence at ALL is due to an ‘American presence’ in Iraq. The insurgents aren’t fighting an American occupation in Iraq like the Mujahadeen were fighting a Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. Almost no one in Iraq believes that the U.S. is a conquering power that intends to stay and control the country and oppress the people. However, there are plenty of people there who oppose the U.S.'s goals of establishing a democratic state. But that won’t change if the U.S. leaves.

The bad news is that the situation is complex enough that there is no easy solution. It’s not just ‘terrorism’ that can all stop if you ‘get the terrorists’ or ‘remove the reason for terrorism’. The good news is that an improvement in one area will lead to improvements in others. For example, brokering a deal with the Sunnis would lower the heat of the insurgency, which in turn makes it harder for the criminals and revenge and honor killings to take place. That helps stabilize the situation, which makes the people feel more secure and more likely to support a political solution. A more stable situation take pressure off security forces and allows them to crack down on criminal behaviour. And so it goes.

But there is no one ‘solution’ to violence in Iraq. If and when it ends, it will be a gradual process. Breakthroughs here and there, agreements here and there, a gradual strengthening of institutions, etc. This struggle won’t end with an armistice declaration or the signing of peace treaty. It will peter out and fade away over years, or it will grow until there is either a full-scale civil war or Iraq winds up looking like Somalia or some other failed state - chaos, a collapse of the economy, no central government to speak of, refugees streaming out, etc.

24

Looks to me you are missing something. The worst thing that could happen from the insurgents POV is for the invading infidels to leave. Their main recruiting tool is fighting the invaders. They do have a problem, they need the US there to give their attacks legitimacy, but the longer we remain the stronger the central government becomes. But they are counting on being able to co-op the security services once they are ready to have us out of the way. As you pointed out, they control how long the US stays. We would be out in a year if the attacks stopped, they know that and we know that. Painful as it is, the status quo works for both sides. As long as the attacks continue, but not too much, we will stay. The insurgents get a recruiting tool, we get time to strengthen the central government. How it ends, no one knows.

25

“Not insurgents but a ‘Freedom Fighters’,” Ronald Reagen.

The US is in Iraq to steal Muslim’s oil in their crusade against Islam. They will never pull out. They are still in Japan and Germany. They still defile the Holy places of Mecca and Medina, years after they restole Kuwait, which was first stolen from Iraq by the crusaders Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin.

We (see Wahhabism) are defending Islam against the crusaders and their apostate (see Shia) lackeys.

26

Sam, do you have any cites for any of these assertions? I would agree that there’s not a majority view among Iraqis that the US seeks permanent or semipermanent control of the country, nor is American presence the only cause of violence. But it doesn’t seem to me that the influence of such views is actually negligible, as you claim.

27

Maybe so, but that does not address the question asked in the OP, which is why there are Iraqis dying at the hands of Iraqis.

There are informed sources who believe that many insurgents are actively supported by units of the American trained Iraqi police and army, to ensure instability continues and so justify the presence of US troops.

You may think differant, but if some believe it then its not going to help things at all.

28

Firstly that is the key point there as many reasons as there are groups. There are a massive range of groups with difference origins and aims. Some are foreign jihaddis directly aligned to Al Qiada, some are local Bathists tied to the old regime, some are local sunnis (not nessacarily connected to either AQ or the old regime) upset at the rise of Shiites and the US occupation, and I’m sure there is a every possible combination of these (Foreign bathists from syria, Iraqis tied to al Qiada, etc.) each with their own reasons for fighting .

Well the Al Qiada aligned groups are quite happy with the status quo, they have the opportunity to attack the US and plunge the country further into chaos by attacking Shiites. Remeber Al Qiada was born in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. That occupation (regardless of what you think of the comparitive morality of the two invasions), shares alot with the current US occupation. And the longer it goes on the more they benefit (its a recruitment tool, training area, etc). They are unlikely to stop their violence in the hope of a better outcome in the future when they are happy with the current situation (especially as that would be perceived as a loss for them in the world at large).

The local sunni groups would have some benefit from the U.S. leaving (and the US army is negotiating with them for this reason). But there are so many groups (some of which are far more extremist, and more closely aligned to AQ, than others, and consider negoiating betrayal) makes this very difficult. Even the ones that could be potentially convinced are likely to be more scared of the Shiites (who would of course have free hand once the US leave) than they are of the US presence.

29

Cite, if you don’t mind. That sounds like very, very partisan bullshit.

30

Has there ever been a documented case of the U.S. government being involved in stealing oil from another country? Can you back this up with even one example?

31

That is one heck of a post.

If true, the US would be one of the first burglars in the history of the world to leave the house he broke into with less than he entered with.

According to this site (which has an axe to grind) the Iraq War has cost the US $287 billion and counting.

The war has reduced energy security: Iraq exports less oil than it used.

“…defile the Holy places of Mecca and Medina”. - Huh? How? Are you saying that nonbelievers should be prohibited from setting foot within 200 miles of the Holy City? That seems immoderate. Maybe you’re saying something else.

…the crusaders and their apostate (see Shia) lackeys."
Ok, but you understand that only most Americans probably were unaware of the Shia/Sunni split prior to the latest Iraq war, right? You also know that “Crusader” connotes “Pre-1400 Christian invader” as well, right?

In the past the US has been happy to bankroll despots that keep the oil flowing. The idea that the US has religious motivations in this conflict that are in any way decisive is a little silly though. We are far too self-absorbed for that.

Your thoughts are welcome on this board though: I don’t think we have enough Islamic participation.

32

The CIA overthrough a democratically elected ruler of Iran in the 1950s because he wanted to nationalize the country’s oil. IIRC, the original contracts were signed with a nondemocratic ruler and therefore did not reflect the will of the populace. Arguably, installing the Shah was a form of resource theft.

33

Well Iraq for one. Just because US troops are not carting off Iraqi oil in tankers does not mean the US is not getting its hands on it. The Occupying powers have ensured that the iraqi provisional government sign away long-term rights to thier own oil to US/UK companies as PSAs (production sharing agreements) .

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

34

That’s not my quote, it’s the InvisibleWombat’s: no biggie, though.

I haven’t thought about the issues addressed in your interesting link. I seriously doubt whether the Iraq invasion is a money-making proposition though. Not that griffen claimed otherwise.

35

Well it’s certainly cost a lot of money.

But who has received the dosh?

Presumably American oil companies, American construction companies (Halliburton, Bechtel…) and the US military have been given most of it.

If it helps theRepublicans persuade voters that they are ‘doing something about terrorism’ and ‘securing US oil supplies’, wouldn’t it be considered a ‘good investment’?

36

Fair point glee, but the Iraqi War has delivered a mild supply shock to the US, which should please neither Wall Street nor the bond market. Specifically, higher energy prices cut into most firm’s profits and higher inflation and budget deficits tend to raise long term interest rates (and therefore lower bond prices).

Certain individual companies benefit, of course. I’m just saying that the economic case for warfare is generally pretty weak. How it fares electorally is more of a mixed bag: many like the feelings of security they receive from leaders they perceive as strong and commanding.

37

Sorry, but I guess questions like this are hard to keep in General Questions.

Moved to Great Debates.

samclem GQ moderator

38

Won’t happen, unless staying there becomes untenable or the oil in the region runs out.

No, we’d stay there longer.

:rolleyes: Yeah, suuure we aren’t. We’re doing so right now; we will continue to do so until the political costs become prohibitive. It is the clear duty of any patriotic Iraqi to kill the Americans in Iraq, and those who collaborate with them.

We want a puppet government, not democracy.

Oil companies are making record profits; keeping the oil from flowing out of Iraq no doubt helps that. That may hurt the US, but it helps the wealthy and powerful.

39

Cite?

Excluding Iran-Iraq War deaths, the figures I’ve heard have been in the 300-400K range.

40

This is mildly scary, a cause for concern, and not good news. I’d like a cite from a different authority, if anyone has it.