Analysis: Iraqi Insurgency Growing Larger, More Effective

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • DLR'sCock
    Crazy Ass Mofo
    • Jan 2004
    • 2937

    Analysis: Iraqi Insurgency Growing Larger, More Effective

    Analysis: Iraqi Insurgency Growing Larger, More Effective
    By Tom Lasseter and Jonathan S. Landay
    Knight Ridder Newspapers

    Sunday 23 January 2005

    BAGHDAD, Iraq - The United States is steadily losing ground to the Iraqi insurgency, according to every key military yardstick.

    A Knight Ridder analysis of U.S. government statistics shows that through all the major turning points that raised hopes of peace in Iraq, including the arrest of Saddam Hussein and the handover of sovereignty at the end of June, the insurgency, led mainly by Sunni Muslims, has become deadlier and more effective.

    The analysis suggests that unless something dramatic changes - such as a newfound will by Iraqis to reject the insurgency or a large escalation of U.S. troop strength - the United States won't win the war. It's axiomatic among military thinkers that insurgencies are especially hard to defeat because the insurgents' goal isn't to win in a conventional sense but merely to survive until the will of the occupying power is sapped. Recent polls already suggest an erosion of support among Americans for the war.

    The unfavorable trends of the war are clear:

    - U.S. military fatalities from hostile acts have risen from an average of about 17 per month just after President Bush declared an end to major combat operations on May 1, 2003, to an average of 82 per month.

    - The average number of U.S. soldiers wounded by hostile acts per month has spiraled from 142 to 808 during the same period. Iraqi civilians have suffered even more deaths and injuries, although reliable statistics aren't available.

    - Attacks on the U.S.-led coalition since November 2003, when statistics were first available, have risen from 735 a month to 2,400 in October. Air Force Brig. Gen. Erv Lessel, the multinational forces' deputy operations director, told Knight Ridder on Friday that attacks were currently running at 75 a day, about 2,300 a month, well below a spike in November during the assault on Fallujah, but nearly as high as October's total.

    - The average number of mass-casualty bombings has grown from zero in the first four months of the American occupation to an average of 13 per month.

    - Electricity production has been below pre-war levels since October, largely because of sabotage by insurgents, with just 6.7 hours of power daily in Baghdad in early January, according to the State Department.

    - Iraq is pumping about 500,000 barrels a day fewer than its pre-war peak of 2.5 million barrels per day as a result of attacks, according to the State Department.

    "All the trend lines we can identify are all in the wrong direction," said Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, a Washington policy research organization. "We are not winning, and the security trend lines could almost lead you to believe that we are losing."

    The combat numbers are based mainly on Defense Department releases compiled by O'Hanlon in an Iraq Index. Since the numbers can fluctuate significantly from month to month, Knight Ridder examined the statistics for fatalities, wounded and mass-casualty bombings using a technique mathematicians call a moving average - averaging the number of attacks in one month with the number of attacks in the two months immediately preceding it in order to better reveal the underlying trend.

    Lessel said that since the U.S. assault on the former rebel stronghold of Fallujah in November, "we have been making a lot of progress" against the insurgency.

    He said the number of attacks, bombings and kidnappings is down from November, experienced insurgent leaders are being arrested or killed, U.S. and Iraqi forces remain on the offensive and more Iraqis have been providing intelligence on insurgents.

    Other indications that "things are turning around" include surveys that show 80 percent of Iraqis wanting to vote in the Jan. 30 elections and more than 90 percent opposing violence as a solution to the crisis. In addition, the recruitment and training of Iraqi security forces are being stepped up, Lessel said.

    "I don't want to paint too rosy a picture. We still have an insurgency that has a lot of capabilities," he said. "When you ask is the insurgency growing, you have to ask is it growing in terms of popular support, and I don't see that happening."

    There are some additional bright spots.

    In the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad and the southern town of Najaf, the scene of intense fighting last year with Shiite Muslim rebels, millions of dollars are pouring into reconstruction efforts.

    Both places are now relatively peaceful and are counted as victories, with the danger of a spreading insurgency backed by Iraq's Shiite Muslim majority largely thwarted.

    Some 14 million Iraqis, mostly Shiite, are registered to vote in the Jan. 30 elections for an interim 275-seat National Assembly. They'll choose among 111 slates comprising 7,785 candidates.

    Roughly 1,500 U.S.-funded reconstruction projects are employing more than 100,000 Iraqis, and the insurgents' campaign of attacks and threats has failed to deter sign-ups for Iraq's new security forces.

    These developments, however, have had little impact on the broader trends that have moved against the United States through all the spikes and lulls in violence.

    Most worrisome, the insurgency is getting larger.

    At the close of 2003, U.S. commanders put the number of insurgents at 5,000. Earlier this month, Gen. Mohammed Abdullah Shahwani, the director of the Iraqi intelligence service, said there are 200,000 insurgents, including at least 40,000 hard-core fighters. The rest, he said, are part-time fighters and supporters who provide food, shelter, funds and intelligence.

    "Many Iraqis respect these gunmen because they are fighting the invaders," said Nabil Mohammed, a Baghdad University political science professor.

    The insurgents "are getting smarter all the time. We've seen a lot of changes in their tactics that say, one, they're getting help from outside, and two, they're learning," said Sgt. 1st Class Glenn Aldrich, 35, of Houston, a 16-year Army veteran, after spending an hour recently greeting Iraqis on a foot patrol through a Baghdad neighborhood.

    The resistance has grown despite suffering huge casualties to overwhelming U.S. firepower. Exact statistics aren't available.

    Insurgent attacks have shifted from small groups of men shooting at tanks with AK-47s to powerful car bombs and roadside explosives, and well-planned assaults, kidnappings and assassinations.

    American soldiers have subdued Sunni hotbeds such as Fallujah and Samarra. Yet these military victories have failed to achieve the broader goal of weakening the resistance.

    Guerrilla fighters leave behind a rear guard force to fight while moving the bulk of their fighters and leadership elsewhere. During and after the Fallujah battle in November, for example, Mosul and several Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad became more violent.

    Some Iraqis say these aggressive U.S. military moves are counterproductive because mass destruction and the killing of Iraqis create more recruits for the insurgency.

    "The insurgency will grow larger," said Ghazi Bada al Faisal, an employee of the Iraqi Ministry of Industry and a Fallujah resident. "The child whose brother and father were killed in the fighting will now seek revenge."

    Some defense analysts are calling for a new strategy and more troops.

    "We can only control the ground we stand on. We leave, and it falls apart," said Jeffrey White, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst at the Washington Center for Near East Policy.

    White proposes sending 20,000 more troops.

    But the Bush administration hopes to replace U.S. troops with well-trained Iraqis.

    In late 2003, Iraqi recruits, many of them young and looking for a paycheck, were pushed through a week or so of training, given guns and uniforms and then declared graduated.

    During the first major fight in Fallujah in April, many of them fled. In the second Fallujah confrontation, in November, they fought behind the main lines of battle and were infamous for spraying gunfire erratically and without warning, but fewer left their posts.

    Even so, an entire national guard battalion in Mosul went absent without leave in November. Much of the Mosul police force simply collapsed under fire.

    Bush administration officials say the program to train and equip new Iraqi security forces of more than 272,000 members is making progress.

    Yet several independent experts said it would take at least two years before there are any meaningful numbers of Iraqi forces with counterinsurgency skills and as many as five years before the U.S. goal is attained.

    "I think you can achieve success, but it will take a while and, unfortunately, there will be a lot more blood," said Peter Khalil, who was a senior security adviser to the U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq.

    Of course, success isn't assured and the United States will be forced to deal with an elected Iraqi government that may set limits on what U.S. troops can do - and could even ask them to leave.

    U.S. military officials had repeatedly, and accurately, predicted more violence in the approach to the elections, which is likely to bring to power a Shiite-dominated government after nearly a century of Sunni rule in Iraq.

    Yet hopes that the election might lead to less violence have recently given way to more dire warnings, with expectations that Sunni insurgents who feel disenfranchised in the new Iraq will turn their guns on the elected government.

    "I think that we will enter a different but still dangerous period in the post-election time frame," Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, the commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, said on Jan. 15.

    Bush has vowed to stay the course.

    The Pentagon dispatched retired U.S. Army Gen. Gary Luck this month to examine the training of Iraqi forces and to put a fresh eye on the anti-insurgent campaign.
  • Nickdfresh
    SUPER MODERATOR

    • Oct 2004
    • 49136

    #2
    Things are going to hell in a hand basket. Looks like Osama got his American Afghanistan he always wanted.

    Comment

    • kentuckyklira
      Veteran
      • Sep 2004
      • 1770

      #3
      Read my sig!

      I´m really glad Bush inc.´s plan to loot Iraq´s resources hasn´t quite worked out!
      http://images.zeit.de/gesellschaft/z...ie-540x304.jpg

      Comment

      • Knucklebones
        Head Fluffer
        • Nov 2004
        • 241

        #4
        Vietnam, cha cha cha

        Comment

        • Sgt Schultz
          Commando
          • Mar 2004
          • 1268

          #5
          Originally posted by kentuckyklira
          Read my sig!

          I´m really glad Bush inc.´s plan to loot Iraq´s resources hasn´t quite worked out!
          Hey German fuckhead - it's too bad we missed your grandparents the last time, maybe next time. Fucking loser assholes like you who are for the Iraqi insurgents can go fuck off and die. Hopefully the latter. Fucking pathetic moron who doesn't even realize that the only reason he's able to fucking type his shit is because we liberated his fuckign country - FUCK YOU!

          Comment

          • Nickdfresh
            SUPER MODERATOR

            • Oct 2004
            • 49136

            #6
            Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
            Hey German fuckhead - it's too bad we missed your grandparents the last time, maybe next time. Fucking loser assholes like you who are for the Iraqi insurgents can go fuck off and die. Hopefully the latter. Fucking pathetic moron who doesn't even realize that the only reason he's able to fucking type his shit is because we liberated his fuckign country - FUCK YOU!
            Was he supposed to support the Soviets in Afghanistan since they also helped "liberate" Germany? They did sacrifice far more than we did after all.

            Comment

            • Knucklebones
              Head Fluffer
              • Nov 2004
              • 241

              #7
              Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
              Hey German fuckhead - it's too bad we missed your grandparents the last time, maybe next time. Fucking loser assholes like you who are for the Iraqi insurgents can go fuck off and die. Hopefully the latter. Fucking pathetic moron who doesn't even realize that the only reason he's able to fucking type his shit is because we liberated his fuckign country - FUCK YOU!




              laaa di daa de daaaaa

              Comment

              • Knucklebones
                Head Fluffer
                • Nov 2004
                • 241

                #8
                still no reply, owned I see

                Comment

                • Sgt Schultz
                  Commando
                  • Mar 2004
                  • 1268

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Knucklebones
                  still no reply, owned I see
                  Yes, I have been "owned" by a 19 year old who peruses conspiracy hack websites for information. Paint me as bitch slapped. What exactly is your point here? That American businessmen and politicians dealt with the German government in the 1930s? And..............?

                  Comment

                  • Sgt Schultz
                    Commando
                    • Mar 2004
                    • 1268

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Nickdfresh
                    Was he supposed to support the Soviets in Afghanistan since they also helped "liberate" Germany? They did sacrifice far more than we did after all.
                    How interesting. The U.S and Britain liberated Germany, the Soviets occupied it and took it over. Ever hear of the Berlin Wall? The German Army invaded the Soviet Union, and that is where the bulk of fighting was done in Europe in WWII - therefore of course they "sacrificed" much more than the Americans did.

                    And then to make this leap into the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and comparing it to the U.S. in Iraq- it's so ludicrous I wouldn't even know where to begin.

                    Try again.

                    Comment

                    • Nickdfresh
                      SUPER MODERATOR

                      • Oct 2004
                      • 49136

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
                      How interesting. The U.S and Britain liberated Germany, the Soviets occupied it and took it over. Ever hear of the Berlin Wall? The German Army invaded the Soviet Union, and that is where the bulk of fighting was done in Europe in WWII - therefore of course they "sacrificed" much more than the Americans did.
                      What is interesting is your semantics. We never would have been able to have defeated the Nazi's and 'liberated' Europe without them! You ignore that in your typical American hubris and ignorance regarding WWII. There would have been no D-Day without Stalingrad! So therefore, by your logic, he owes the Russians at least as much as he owes us.

                      And then to make this leap into the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan...
                      NO! YOU made the leap when you rip a German national, acting as if he "owes us" something for his 'liberation' without putting anything in a proper, realistic historical context! I was merely pointing out and deconstructing your bullshit. I don't necessarily agree with Kentucky, but he has the right to provide an alternate perspective which is entirely valid. Germans are not semi-Americans that owe us allegiance as you seem to think.

                      ...and comparing it to the U.S. in Iraq- it's so ludicrous I wouldn't even know where to begin.
                      You don't know where to begin because you don't understand the analogy! I was merely pointing out, as have many others, that Osama wanted to tie down and possibly defeat a superpower in a guerilla war like he experienced during the Afghan War. That's why 9/11 happened, to prompt us to run off to Afghanistan. It is happening, only not the way he thought it would, in Iraq.


                      Try again.
                      Try again what? You try again!

                      Comment

                      • BigBadBrian
                        TOASTMASTER GENERAL
                        • Jan 2004
                        • 10620

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Nickdfresh
                        . That's why 9/11 happened, to prompt us to run off to Afghanistan. It is happening, only not the way he thought it would, in Iraq.



                        Try again what? You try again!
                        Conventional Wisdom says that is what is happening, but it is not. That is where I have to give RumDum credit as much as I have distaste for the man.

                        Large quantities of US forces are not bogged down in Iraq. Yes, we have some 150,000 people there, but those people could be extracted and put into action elsewhere (Iran, Syria ???) if the need suddenly arose.

                        Remember, the bulk of US armor and artillery is still available for use elsewhere.

                        Furtherthermore, I believe the US does indeed have an exit strategy to be implemented over time after the Iraqi elections. The pot will take time to simmer back down, but eventually we can start to pull our people out.
                        “If bullshit was currency, Joe Biden would be a billionaire.” - George W. Bush

                        Comment

                        • Sgt Schultz
                          Commando
                          • Mar 2004
                          • 1268

                          #13
                          “What is interesting is your semantics. We never would have been able to have defeated the Nazi's and 'liberated' Europe without them! You ignore that in your typical American hubris and ignorance regarding WWII. There would have been no D-Day without Stalingrad! So therefore, by your logic, he owes the Russians at least as much as he owes us. “

                          I’ll take you or anyone else on, any day, regarding WWII history. Bring it on. I know full well the Soviet Union defeated Germany and that the Western front was secondary. Your argument fails utterly in what was done AFTER the defeat of the Nazis in the different occupied zones. Care to compare what East Germany was in every aspect to what West Germany was up to the fall of the Wall?


                          “YOU made the leap when you rip a German national, acting as if he "owes us" something for his 'liberation' without putting anything in a proper, realistic historical context! I was merely pointing out and deconstructing your bullshit. I don't necessarily agree with Kentucky, but he has the right to provide an alternate perspective which is entirely valid. Germans are not semi-Americans that owe us allegiance as you seem to think. “

                          Wrong again, I don’t think that, but you are showing that YOU are a reactionary who has a knee-jerk reaction when certain buzz-words or phrases are used. Yes, of course every German, and continental European for that matter, must credit the United States and Britain for their current status of wealth and luxury of not having any responsibilities to protect themselves or others in the world. I never said Germans were semi- Americans, but Americans have every right to be annoyed with the Germans for a de-facto breaking of their allegiance with the U.S. when things got too uncomfortable for them while the U.S. spent billions and billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives to liberate, rebuild and then priotect them for 40+ years.

                          “You don't know where to begin because you don't understand the analogy! I was merely pointing out, as have many others, that Osama wanted to tie down and possibly defeat a superpower in a guerilla war like he experienced during the Afghan War. That's why 9/11 happened, to prompt us to run off to Afghanistan. It is happening, only not the way he thought it would, in Iraq. “

                          I certainly do understand what your analogy, but the analogy is flawed utterly. You and others have this notion of Osama as some brilliant tactician and reconstruct history after the fact to fit your twisted view of current realities. Osama’s strategy was to “lure” us into Afghanistan so we would be defeated like the Soviets were? Wrong. The majority of trouble in Iraq is coming from Sunni Ba’athists who have been ruling Iraq for a long time and don’t want to give up their power.

                          It comes down to this – you are either in favor of the U.S. winning the war in Iraq – or not. If you are not in favor of the U.S. winning the war in Iraq you are in favor of reestablishing Saddam Hussein as the legitimate President of Iraq. Period. You decide which side you’re on.

                          Comment

                          • BigBadBrian
                            TOASTMASTER GENERAL
                            • Jan 2004
                            • 10620

                            #14
                            Originally posted by Sgt Schultz


                            It comes down to this – you are either in favor of the U.S. winning the war in Iraq – or not. If you are not in favor of the U.S. winning the war in Iraq you are in favor of reestablishing Saddam Hussein as the legitimate President of Iraq. Period. You decide which side you’re on.
                            Indeed. Nick is a Neo-Liberal Socialist in favor of the US losing to the Iraqi resistance. He favors us negotiating with them.
                            “If bullshit was currency, Joe Biden would be a billionaire.” - George W. Bush

                            Comment

                            • Nickdfresh
                              SUPER MODERATOR

                              • Oct 2004
                              • 49136

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Sgt Schultz

                              I’ll take you or anyone else on, any day, regarding WWII history. Bring it on. I know full well the Soviet Union defeated Germany and that the Western front was secondary. Your argument fails utterly in what was done AFTER the defeat of the Nazis in the different occupied zones. Care to compare what East Germany was in every aspect to what West Germany was up to the fall of the Wall?
                              Then why do you make this cavalier 'we freed your ass' statements when in fact it was an alliance of convenience that defeated the Hun barbarians. This isn't about East or West Germany, my point was about your statement that the Germans solely owe us anything when in fact we have always looked out for our interests and our interests solely.


                              Wrong again, I don’t think that, but you are showing that YOU are a reactionary who has a knee-jerk reaction when certain buzz-words or phrases are used.
                              I have no idea what you mean specifically. But I am hardly a reactionary.

                              [b]Yes, of course every German, and continental European for that matter, must credit the United States and Britain for their current status of wealth and luxury of not having any responsibilities to protect themselves or others in the world.[b]
                              What do you mean, the German Bundeswehr is one of the largest, best trained and funded forces in Central Europe. As part of the NATO alliance, they have assisted greatly in providing security of the Western World. The Germans worked very hard for their economic miracle and it benefited us as much as it has them.

                              Does the fact that we had troops there for 50 years mean now that they must follow our policy edicts when it is made by insane, unrealistic, and frankly stupid Neo Cons that believe they can remake the world in our image with enough tanks.


                              I never said Germans were semi- Americans, but Americans have every right to be annoyed with the Germans for a de-facto breaking of their allegiance with the U.S. when things got too uncomfortable for them while the U.S. spent billions and billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives to liberate, rebuild and then priotect them for 40+ years.
                              We 'protected' them because it was in our best interests. The Germans have been trading parters and have paid us back by helping to open new markets for our goods and building cars for us. They don't owe us anything more than that, not if you mean they must send their kids to die in Iraq. I'm sorry, but I do not subscribe to the Neo Con bullshit anti-European smear campaign that has been orchestrated by our Freedom Fry lovin' assholes in the RNC high command.

                              I certainly do understand what your analogy, but the analogy is flawed utterly. You and others have this notion of Osama as some brilliant tactician and reconstruct history after the fact to fit your twisted view of current realities. Osama’s strategy was to “lure” us into Afghanistan so we would be defeated like the Soviets were? Wrong.
                              Really? Then why did 9/11 work? Why did we ultimately invade Afghanistan, only not the way Osama wanted? That's exactly what he wanted, to commit America to the global jihad. Some in the CIA do see Osama as a brilliant tactician. After all, he was once on their payroll.


                              The majority of trouble in Iraq is coming from Sunni Ba’athists who have been ruling Iraq for a long time and don’t want to give up their power.
                              Really? You sure? Of course it is! I said Osama did not plan for things to happen this way, it's Dubya's and the Neo Con's incompetence, not Osama's brilliance, that has resulted in this 'quagmire.'

                              It comes down to this – you are either in favor of the U.S. winning the war in Iraq – or not. If you are not in favor of the U.S. winning the war in Iraq you are in favor of reestablishing Saddam Hussein as the legitimate President of Iraq. Period. You decide which side you’re on.
                              Yeah right! Nice black and white over-simplification! I'm in favor of Saddam now, eh? BULLSHIT!

                              Just ignore all of the WMD bullshit and the fact that Osama had nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

                              This hasn't been about Saddam for two years now! We are not going to 'win' in Iraq, not without a massive increase in troop strength. We are not going to defeat this insurgency because despite all of our efforts, things go bad to worse. The only thing now is to hope the Shiites and Sunnis can sort it out amongst themselves with a power sharing arrangement, probably after a substantial portion of U.S. troops are withdrawn. The plan was flawed from the beginning, and as the Romans used to say, "bad beginnings beget bad endings."

                              Comment

                              Working...