The challenge facing the US and its allies, including Britain, has been totally transformed by the fact that the insurgency no longer conforms to the stereotype according to which al-Qaeda is perceived as planning and carrying out attacks throughout Iraq in a coordinated campaign.
A Washington group, the Search for International Terrorist Entities (SITE) Institute, which collates information on insurgency groups that use the internet, has identified more than 100 claiming to be waging jihad in Iraq.
They have fierce-sounding and evocative names, such as Al Baraa bin Malik Suicide Brigade, The Tawid Lions of Abdullah ibn al Zobeir, Supporters of the Sunni People, The Men’s Faith Brigade and Islamic Anger. New ones appear almost daily.
While some claim affiliation with al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the title which al-Qaeda gives itself in Iraq, others appear to act alone.
The Bush administration has long maintained that the insurgency is made up of three groups: disaffected Sunni Arabs, who have lost out since the fall of Saddam; former Saddam government loyalists; and foreign-born terrorists connected to al-Qaeda.
But the proliferation of insurgency groups explains why the insurgency has been so hard to destroy, forcing the US to change tack.
“There is no centre of gravity, no leadership, no hierarchy; they are more a constellation than an organisation,” says Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at the Rand Corporation of the new-look insurgency. “They have adopted a structure that assures their longevity.” As a result, even killing or capturing al-Zarqawi would not end the rebellion.
Because the structure of the Iraqi insurgency is horizontal as opposed to hierarchical, it cannot be decapitated. Most of it remains untouched and carries on after any single part of it is attacked.
There is no light at the end of this tunnel. Even difficult, complex solutions — well beyond the simplistic ideology our government replies upon — don’t appear to be at hand. We have “leadership” that can’t admit mistakes — hoping that might will ultimately make right for longer than a few more years occupation. This time around, the strategic hamlets are for the safety of American troops instead of “tamed” indigenous villages. As absurd as they are hopeless. Clueless.
I guess you want those 20 Iraqi battalions to shut down and let these groups have the country? Perhaps Saddam should be put back in charge? In many areas, Iraqi soldiers and police are the primary and only force patrolling.
Save the straw man for burning witches.
Two examples I was concerned with going into the Iraq war: the Israel/Palestinian situation and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Two more come to mind now; the Lebanese and Sudanese civil wars.
Again, the only country I know of that ever maintained a successful and undesired presence in another country was Rome, and it got its way by killing whole populations.
I don’t know why neither Rumsfeld or Bush thought of these things. I hope they’ve heard of them before.
Most are forgetting why we are even over there, the 9/11 was an act of war nothing more nothing less. Anyone who overlooks 9/11 is just as good as a terror supporter, we have to answer and not back down when some punk with power rattles your cage.
You’re right, ZombieFlanks, I do keep forgetting why we are there. But only because it changes so much it’s hard to keep track.
Who exactly was the punk who rattled “our cage” in Irag?
The picture looks like a plan for Bill Gates’ underground mansion.