• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. in guerrilla war, general says

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jason Jarvis
  • Start date Start date
J

Jason Jarvis

Guest
It looks like the Americans are finally accepting the reality of the situation that they‘ve created within Iraq.

U.S. in guerrilla war, general says

Iraqi resistance now more co-ordinated, ‘less amateurish,‘ Abizaid acknowledges

Thursday, July 17, 2003 - U.S. military commanders were forced to acknowledge yesterday that their soldiers are fighting an all-out guerrilla war in Iraq, as a flurry of attacks and killings made it apparent that U.S.-led forces do not have control over the country.

The 24th anniversary yesterday of ousted president Saddam Hussein‘s seizure of power in Iraq saw an escalation of attacks. First, an attack killed the pro-U.S. mayor of a city west of Baghdad and his son. Later, a surface-to-air missile was fired at a U.S. transport plane landing at Baghdad airport but missed it, and three grenade attacks on convoys and troops killed at least one U.S. soldier and an 8-year-old Iraqi boy.

Yesterday‘s attacks raised the U.S. death toll in combat since the war began to 146, just shy of the 147 U.S. combat deaths in the 1991 Persian Gulf war. More than 35 soldiers have been killed in guerrilla attacks since May 1, when U.S. President George W. Bush declared major combat over.

The attacks appeared to be co-ordinated by a group calling itself Liberating Iraq‘s Army, whose members appeared on the Al-Arabiya satellite news channel and sent leaflets to some government workers urging them not to go to work yesterday.

Previously, U.S. commanders had insisted they were not facing a full-scale war and that they had control of the Baghdad area. Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. Defence Secretary, recently described atttacks on soldiers as unrelated police matters.

But General John Abizaid, the recently appointed commander of U.S. troops in the region, said in an unusually frank briefing yesterday that his soldiers will be forced to change their tactics as the attacks have increased in frequency and appear to be centrally co-ordinated.

The insurgents, possibly led by Mr. Hussein, who remains at large, "are conducting what I would describe as a classical guerrilla-type campaign against us," Gen. Abizaid said. "It‘s low-intensity conflict in our doctrinal terms, but it‘s war however you describe it."

Gen. Abizaid, who is fluent in Arabic, said he believes the guerrillas are mainly Iraqi Baath Party loyalists, backed by foreign Muslim fighters entering through Syria.

"Look, war is a struggle of wills. You look at the Arab press. They say, ‘We drove the Americans out of Beirut; we drove them out of Somalia; you know, we‘ll drive them out of Baghdad.‘ And that‘s just not true. They‘re not driving us out of anywhere."

He acknowledged for the first time, however, that the more than 140,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq will be forced to change their tactics because it has become apparent the war has not been won.

"At the tactical level, they are better co-ordinated now," he said of the guerrillas. "They‘re less amateurish, and their ability to use improvised explosive devices and combine the use of these explosive devices with some sort of tactical activity . . . is more sophisticated."

In one of yesterday‘s attacks, Mohammed Nayil al-Jurayfi, who had actively co-operated with U.S. forces as mayor of Hadithah, was killed along with his son when their car was ambushed and raked with automatic rifle fire as they drove away from his office in the city 240 kilometres northwest of Baghdad, Iraqi police said.

Some military observers said the U.S. troops are ill-prepared for the sort of urban warfare they are facing in Iraq, and that an international policing body is needed.

"I think that the U.S. went into this with somewhat unrealistic expectations of how quickly and easily it could be done," said James Dobbins, a former senior U.S. State Department official who led operations in Somalia, the Balkans and Afghanistan. He was one of several veteran officials who said that stability cannot be reached in Iraq until a much larger, international force is imposed.

The morale of U.S. soldiers has fallen dramatically. Soldiers openly criticized Mr. Rumsfeld on television yesterday, some calling for his resignation.

Gen. Abizaid, acknowledging that U.S. troops will have to remain for months longer, said he was determined to replace the longest-serving units by September, a year after they arrived in the region. He also acknowledged the occupation and violence are hurting the morale of U.S. soldiers.

Read it in The Globe and Mail by Doug Saunders.
Am I the only one not surprised that Donald Rumsfeld is nowhere to be seen now that things haven‘t gone as smoothly as his shiny-suit cronies predicted?

Yes, he still does the rounds on the Sunday morning political talk shows, but he‘s almost totally disappeared from the mainstream news.
 
They stepped in the wrong pile of dog sh!t, and stunk up the whole block.

It will be years before the last Americans leave Iraq, after delcaring a peaceful zone. The conflict will not end anytime soon, I can garentee that. Soon enough, there will be Canadian peace keepers in Iraq cleaning up the US‘s dirty footprints.
 
"Look, war is a struggle of wills. You look at the Arab press. They say, ‘We drove the Americans out of Beirut; we drove them out of Somalia; you know, we‘ll drive them out of Baghdad.‘ And that‘s just not true. They‘re not driving us out of anywhere."
That‘s quite amusing - I‘m currently reading through an excellent novel about guerilla wars throughout history, and I could swear I heard almost the exact same quote, used in reference during the Vietnam era (minus the Beirut/Somalia references, obviously)

The simple truth is that the guerilla combat can only exist with the help of the people. So clearly, if this continues, the people of Iraq aren‘t as willing to be liberated as everyone thought.

I‘d bet anything that most of the troops stationed in Iraq are starting to feel this whole thing a fair bit.

Soon enough, there will be Canadian peace keepers in Iraq cleaning up the US‘s dirty footprints
Geez, I sincerely hope not. Is that a barrel of worms we really want to open up? True, we‘d be going in as a neutral party. But many of the locals won‘t view it that way. At least in Afghanistan, we seem to have the (general) support of the public, and there is a desire for change. In Iraq, I‘m not so sure yet.
 
The simple truth is that the guerilla combat can only exist with the help of the people. So clearly, if this continues, the people of Iraq aren‘t as willing to be liberated as everyone thought.
True enough ... perhaps. I suspect a majority of Iraqis are quite pleased that Hussein is no longer in control, but I also suspect that there are more than a fair share of Iraqis who miss what he stood for -- a strong, defiant defender of the Arabic world thumbing his nose at the infidel Christians.

I‘m not trying to be inflammatory here, but let‘s face the facts: how would you respond to a foreign power invading your country and installing a puppet regime?

We‘ve already gone over the "what if?" scenarios, and the consensus is that we‘d fight -- not because we liked the strong-arm repression of the previous government, but because it‘s our country. Screw off and let us fix it ourselves.

I don‘t think anyone would argue that Hussein wasn‘t a potentially destabilizing factor in the Middle East, but let‘s face it: he was contained. Maybe not sanitized, but definitely contained.

I‘m not surprised at all that the Iraqis are resisting the American and British efforts to stabilize the country. They‘re a proud people with an incredible history, and who are struggling right now to recover from a very bad period -- of course they‘re not going to agree with themselves. They‘re certainly not going to tolerate a foreign occupation force, especially one from a different religion.

Yes, the U.S. and Britan do have a certain obligation to help Iraqis chart a course through these troubled waters -- they started the war, after all. My big beef with the Americans is with their lack of anticipation of this kind of outcome -- what did they think would happen? All those people in Washington with all those brains, and no one could put enough grey cells together to predict this.

I think the only way the Americans and British can limit their losses is to get more countries involved. I read this morning that the Russians are toying with the idea of sending troops. While I suspect this is little more than empty posturing, it would certainly go a long way in legitimizing a continued foreign presence in Iraq, and keeping it from sliding into an early-90s version of Afghanistan.

Because we all know where that got us....
 
Good post, Jason.

They‘re a proud people with an incredible history, and who are struggling right now to recover from a very bad period -- of course they‘re not going to agree with themselves.
That part reminds me of an interesting paragraph in the book I‘m reading, in reference to the Somalia debacle:
...from the viewpoint of the Somali people, the United States also commenced a program of "nation building" in1993, seeking to create a country in the image of the United States. Nations, however, must evolve out of the genius of their own people. Outsiders, no matter how well intentioned, cannot impose their values and their institutions on a people who have no knowledge of them or any experience in their development or implementation.
It‘s a neat thought - imagine if a group from a European government came over to the U.S. right before the Civil War, or something similiar, and offered an excellent new government, along with a stronger economy. Do you honestly think that any sizeable groups of Americans would accept this?

Frankly, I just hope the higher-ups in the United States get a grip and work things out before many more soldiers die. They‘re getting caught in a horrible political battle, and although they are soldiers and its their job, their talents could be certainly more effective elsewhere.
 
Well, I don‘t know how CBC reports stuff, but here in the US -we were warned that it would take a long time to help set up a government in Iraq. We were told months or even years. We were warned that the "end of the war" was not the end of hostilities, and that there was still a lot of work to be done, and plenty of danger still existed. The problem with a campaign as rapid as that one is that it bypassed a lot of resistance. Now - press reports and govt propaganda aside - I personally have listened to a lot of soldiers returning from Iraq - not Generals - but PFCs, Sgts, Captains, etc. - and they say unanimously - that the vast majority of the Iraqi population is glad to have them there. They are friendly, helpful, and relieved. The guerillas are not representative of the population as a whole, anymore than Al Qaeda is representative of all Muslims, or the Quislings were of all Norwegians...
 
that the vast majority of the Iraqi population is glad to have them there
That‘s a good sign. Not only will that help troop morale there, but that means that an all-out guerilla battle would be extremely difficult for the anti-American fighters. They need the support of the people in order to survive. Otherwise, it‘s just a matter of time before they get caught.
 
Well, here goes. The US completely defeated Germany and had the Nuremburg trials to pin responsibility on the Nazis. The head British prosecutor just passed away and his preliminary statement alone was over 5 hours long.
On the other hand, we have had ‘states‘ who have not been so homogeneous in defeat that factions have continued on.
Do they continue to fight as legitimate groups (Suni, Shiite Muslim or Kurdish) or are they ‘criminals‘? If they are legitimate combatants then they must have a leader, command structure and be responsible for their actions.
The USA can only forecast legitimate groups rising up, and criminals are criminals under any sort of national law.
My other point is a sort of physics experiment called a ‘free body diagram‘ where all forces action on an object are calculated. Without external support, does Iraq become a unified democracy or dictatorship or a core with tribes controlling the outskirts? Any sort of civilized government is possible with an infinite amount of external support/force/money, but what can be sustained?
Two questions:
1. It is in the best interests of the US to eliminate Saddam. What is the extent of its moral/military/economic responsiblilities to rebuild Iraq?
2. The kicker - are European nations more disposed to liberal thought and free trade and rule of democratic law than other societies?
 
After annihalating a country‘s infrastructure, the country that "wins" rarely spends the billions of dollars in loans or whatnot to rebuild the country out of concern for the civilian populace. The reason the United States is pumping money into Iraq (and Afghanistan, but obviously not to the same extent) is to prevent the country from becoming a hotbed of political unrest. For instance, at the end of WW1, the Allies, largely due to France, largely pillaged Germany, making them pay reparations through the nose. This was a huge reason for WW2.

Forgive the roughness, I‘m too tired to write out my history paper word for word. Moral of story, the US will pay, or else they‘ll risk organizations such as Al-Quaeda using the country as a recruiting tool.

Makes you glad you live in Canada eh?
 
"Makes you glad you live in Canada eh?"

I pay over $1000 a month in taxes to have certian people in ottawa who are recieving free university educations (and $800+ a month spending cash) laugh in my face.

Canada should be like the us. No taxes for soldiers in places like the cannex and such.
 
Yeah, I think we all lose alot of our paychecks. Granted, the only reason I‘m as far into my university program as I am is because of bursuries, subsidies, and other progrmas that some people would consider "unfair" to taxpayers. Have you seen what they pay in the United States? Were that the same here, I‘d be in debt for the rest of my life. Good luck getting that mortgage! What a great way to graduate, a$$full in debt before you ever start to get on your feet.

I‘m not sure what program you‘re talking about (free education, laughing in your face - sign me up! ;) ) but if it really tickles you that much, you should goto the US. I‘m sure somewhere in the world right now, someone would want to take your place.

(Sorry, I just get nervous when people start clamouring for change in the education sector)
 
Im a university graduate, would you like fries with that?
:blotto:

It‘s not so much a program as it is a visible minority thing which i don‘t agree with.

Wouldn‘t be so bad if it wasn‘t so widely abused.
ex. getting free books, twice as much as they require and turning around and selling those extra free books for profit.

The system is utter BS. I had to shell out $3600 for my wife‘s college because osap is retarded yet other people who live at home with their parents get $10‘000 from the goverment. **** i‘d be far into university if i had that too.

‘thou shalt not steal‘

Besides, your from BC. Don‘t you have some smoking to do ;)
 
Back
Top