Doom and gloom, as per usual

In response to a post by Tigerhawk.

First things first, this is the NYT, and that article was written with a slant, though they seemed to hide it better than usual.

For instance, it begins; "the anti-American insurgency has continued to strengthen despite the killing of the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."

That's way too simple, and not technically correct anyway. Please follow me through our collective memories...

At one time, the 'insurgency' was Baathist. It has since been crushed. Everyone knows and acknowledges this.

Then it was Salafist, fueled by MB/Hamas-types from Palestine and the Gulf. They didn't do so hot either, their chieftain got blown up a couple of months ago and their network broken from the top down. That means that the ones who were left were local, small scale groups with limited resources. All they can do are plant IEDs. When was the last time they launched a coordinated attack en masse on a prison or Marine base? Before Zarqawi was toasted, right. Simplest explanation for a rise in the number of IEDs is two-fold:

1) all those jihadists who were in Zarqawi's since disassembled organization have taken their mortar rounds and started making bombs out of them, since they aren't using them in coordinated assaults anymore. Why let them go to waste, after all? (educated guess here, I don't have hard information)

2) Iran is supplying them, to some groups. That's a fact, and has been for some time. One of theirs killed a friend of mine.

A simple rise in IED's might indicate an increase in strength, but not here because it has been accompanied by a simultaneous FALL in other activites, like the prison breaks and guerrilla assaults I mentioned. The Salafists are building road bombs because it is effective and cheap. They're not raiding installations because they can no longer afford to. That indicates a WEAKENING of the Salafist insurgency; they can no longer carry out operations that at one time they did regularly.

Given these points how can one explain the (anonymous, naturally, which I inherently distrust) statement, "“The insurgency has gotten worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically high levels,” said a senior Defense Department official who agreed to discuss the issue only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for attribution. “The insurgency has more public support and is demonstrably more capable in numbers of people active and in its ability to direct violence than at any point in time.”"

Assuming that that statement wasn't taken out of time or context, that doesn't make any sense does it? After all, Zarqawi and almost all of his cell chiefs (remember all those raids that immediately followed his death?) have been neutralized. And how would Zarqawi's insurgency, which killed more Shi'i than Americans anyway, ever have such public support in a majority Shi'i country? Seems contradictory, doesn't it?

That's because the statement is referring to the Shi'a militias, not 'the insurgency' that everyone thinks of. The Shi'a militias are, again, funded, armed, and possibly trained by the Iranians. Their political leaders regularly travel to Iran for 'consultations.' (i.e. instructions) And they have begun to seriously misbehave by killing political, religious, and occassionally business rivals and picking fights with the British. Though they were laying off the US; after Sadr's two previous beat-downs and the nasty bloody destruction of a few of their Baghdad 'death squad' by US/Iraqi Special Forces, [which was accompanied by a 'hands off' warning to Iran; you might remember that little gem in the 'oh wow, a US diplomat is going to talk to Iranians' episode a few months ago] they didn't seem eager to play with us anymore, it looks like they've gotten their fight back.

The power and assertiveness of Shi'a militias is an Iraqi political problem and they're trying to find a way to deal with them *without* a rebellion. There have been direct assaults against some of the more obnoxious of these groups, but they were not overt or politically challenging. I don't think a peaceful effort'll work myself; they're not the type to compromise.

But anyway, tying Iranian-backed Shi'a militias in with Baathist and Salaafist fighters (who spent a significant amount of time and effort killing Shi'a) is wrong at best, dishonest at worse.

What this uptick in violence represents is not an angry country trying to rid itself of an occupying power... that's silly. If that's what the goverment wanted, all they have to do is say "leave," rather than "please don't go away yet." What this is is the increased aggression of foreign-backed militias. They've gotten themselves into a zealous, earth-cleansing crusading frenzy, helped by the Hezb'Allah drama and Ahmadouchebag's apocalyptic rhetoric, and by god they're going to purify their land with fire and blood. (they really do talk like that you know)

There may be a civil war in Iraq if no suitable peaceful way is found to reduce these militias; but it won't be sectarian. It'll be US- backed/nationalist/loyalist and Iran-backed/religious/rebel. If we depart without leaving a secure, unchallanged government (in whatever form) then we've handed the country to Iran and invited intervention by the other Arab powers. They've been working against us almost from the beginning, first with money, then with bombs and bullets.

The Baathists are beaten, and Al Qaeda is beaten. Now it's a war by proxy with Iran. Inshal'lah, after them there won't be another enemy and we can go home. Or invade Iran. Whatever.