Sunni Guerrilla Movement Consolidating, Implacable: ICG
The International Crisi Group has released a study of the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement in Iraq, using internet posting, videos and other sources over the past two years.
Reuters discusses the report here.
While ICG stresses the importance of the internet, some observers fear that Abu Ghuraib prison itself may have become a sort of university for terrorists.
The report's main conclusions:
' *
The insurgency increasingly is dominated by a few large groups with sophisticated communications. It no longer is a scattered, erratic, chaotic phenomenon. Groups are well organised, produce regular publications, react rapidly to political developments and appear surprisingly centralised.
*
There has been gradual convergence around more unified practices and discourse, and predominantly Sunni Arab identity. A year ago groups appeared divided over practices and ideology but most debates have been settled through convergence around Sunni Islamic jurisprudence and Sunni Arab grievances. For now virtually all adhere publicly to a blend of Salafism and patriotism, diluting distinctions between foreign jihadis and Iraqi combatants – though that unity is unlikely to outlast the occupation.
*
Despite recurring contrary reports, there is little sign of willingness by any significant insurgent element to join the political process or negotiate with the U.S. While covert talks cannot be excluded, the publicly accessible discourse remains uniformly and relentlessly hostile to the occupation and its “collaborators”.
*
The groups appear acutely aware of public opinion and increasingly mindful of their image. Fearful of a backlash, they systematically and promptly respond to accusations of moral corruption or blind violence, reject accusations of a sectarian campaign and publicise efforts to protect civilians or compensate their losses. Some gruesome and locally controversial practices – beheading hostages, attacking people going to the polls – have been abandoned. The groups underscore the enemy’s brutality and paint the U.S. and its Iraqi allies in the worst possible light: waging dirty war in coordination with sectarian militias, engaging in torture, fostering the country’s division and being impervious to civilian losses.
*
The insurgents have yet to put forward a clear political program or long-term vision for Iraq. Focused on operations, they acknowledge this would be premature and potentially divisive. That said, developments have compelled the largest groups to articulate a more coherent position on elections, and the prospect of an earlier U.S. withdrawal than anticipated is gradually leading them to address other political issues.
*
The insurgency is increasingly optimistic about victory. Such self-confidence was not there when the war was conceived as an open-ended jihad against an occupier they believed was determined to stay. Optimism stems from a conviction the legitimacy of jihad is now beyond doubt, institutions established under the occupation are fragile and irreparably illegitimate, and the war of attrition against U.S. forces is succeeding. '

|
Facebook




8 Comments:
The old Vietnam Veteran in me just has to wonder:
Which army will emerge from this three-year old civil war the stronger?
(a) The sectarian militias that depend upon the world's mightiest superpower for supply and protection? or
(b) The former Iraqi army that has dispersed, regrouped and reconstituted, and that has fought to a standstill those same militias (representing 80% of the Shiite-Kurdish population) and the world's mightiest superpower both?
Just wondering. Somehow the long-forgotten name of Nguyen Van Thieu keeps popping up in my memory, along with a ludicrous acronym, ARVN: an "army" that my own government once sent me to "stand up" but which "fell down" three years after I left for home, dropping its weapons and trousers and running away in its collective undershorts.
Do we really have to waste another three bloody years just to see the inevitable?
"The US military has stopped transferring prisoners to Iraqi jails until the Iraqis improve their prisoner care."
This is after the scandal of finding out that the Iraqi police were torturing to death mainly Sunni inmates. The US military found it and released everyone. Amazing, after Abu Ghraib. The US military has been trying to outsource torture for some time now, so shutting down that ministry of the interior prison seems to run counter to that plan. Was that a case of an unwitting US commander finding something his superiors didn't want him to see? The US has condoned torture via Guantanamo, "rendering" to foreign countries, the hidden "Hotel California" prison, allying with Uzbekistan, etc. Is this refusal to hand detainees over to Iraqi military a result of the US Military no longer being able to do it publicly in Iraq anymore?
Thank you for the link to the excellent report on the insurgency.
However, the recommendations for the US are pointless: the party is nearly over.
A mega reconcilliation conference, to be attended by Kufi Anan, will convene in the summer: top of the agenda is the end of the occupation
The withdrawl timetable demand to follow will only allow for the logistics, not conditions or scheduling, to complete in weeks.
The problem is that W is getting real heavy on the LSD. Leaving will clearly mean that he has nothing to show for the American lives and treasure spent. While he can not refuse to leave, he has some juvenile verbal games he thinks will work:
1) Leaving 30,000 troops in Iraq (the figure in plan A as disclosed by Rumsfeld in 2003 BTW) is not an occupation.
2) The problem is the "footprint" only, so we will put all our troops in Baghdad.
3) The Iraqis absolutely need us to negotiate with the Sunnis to lay down their arms.
4) If we leave, we will not be able to protect KBR, Bechtel ..etc who are the only companies on the planet able to rebuild Iraq.
5) Our National Interest is above Internation Laws. We are staying.
6) Our Special Relationship, essential for Iraq, is linked to us having troops here: If we stay, we will order the EU and the Gulf States to give aid to Iraq, but if we leave we will prevent them from giving any aid whatsoever.
Mark Hughes has an interesting view on why China may have backed Iran's referral to the UN Security Council.
Quote:
China has a $70 billion oil deal with Iran. It is possible that China has been reluctantly agreeing to the U.S. and European attempts to apply pressure to Iran, simply because it is obvious that most of Iran's animosity is directed at the two Western players. Once the matter comes before the U.N., a situation that is delayed because first the International Atomic Energy Agency will first review and report on the matter to the U.N., China might choose to either abstain from a Security Council vote or actually side with Iran. The goal here for China would be for Iran to follow a course leading to an embargo against the Western allies, and China could step into the vacuum and secure an even more lucrative deal with Iran to purchase almost all of the nation's oil exports. Iran looses (sic)nothing, they strike a blow at the West, and China benefits from that as well as from increased access to Iranian oil. The danger for China is that the U.S. might take military action against Iran, but if these events are properly timed by China then the economic maneuver of dumping dollars and Treasury bills and the switch to euros by Iran and other OPEC members could blunt any U.S. attempt to get into a costly military confrontation. Adding to the injury to the U.S. would be the overall increase in oil prices that would stem from an Iranian embargo targeting the West.
I loved the bit about "focused on operations", the insurgents have yet to put forward a plan for the long-term. Do the people writing these reports ever get the feeling they are looking in a mirror, one wonders.
Interestingly Reuters chooses to focus on Zarqawi - who gets 5 mentions in what is a short piece
Juan, I discussed the UCG report over at Just World News yesterday. It is a very thoughtful and well-researched piece. The footnotes also make great reading!
My bottom line is that:
(1) though the report writers still say they want to US and its allies to "prevail" (as they say) over the counter-insurgents, the analysis they present plus the ongoing evidence from the facts on the ground indicates that straight-out "prevailing" is not an option; but
(2) though "prevailing" is most likely not an option, negotiations with the insurgents-- which will be, under some form, the only way the US can get out of Iraq without a debacle-- actually seem, from the evidence presented in the report, to be more achievable than I had previously thought... primarily because the insurgent groups have consolidated themselves more than I had previously thought. With only four major insurgent groups, finding a way to open talks-about-talks with them looks doable.
Anyway, your readers (and you) are warmly invited over to JWN to join the discussin on this issue.
Hi,
"your readers (and you) are warmly invited over to JWN to join the discussin on this issue."
Well what is this about, where can I get more information please about JWN?
Regards,
Hot deals on mobile
Post a Comment
<< Home