HOW BIG IS THE INSURGENCY IN IRAQ?

UPDATE: I am currently revising this estimate. Stay tuned for a new release.

Can the US win in Iraq? One of the most important factors is the size of the Iraqi insurgency. However, the numbers presented by the US military on its size are less than compelling. They have ranged from 12,000 to 20,000. These numbers do not mesh with the reality of the situation:

• The frequency, dispersion, and depth of attacks indicates a large force.
• The resiliency of the insurgency despite substantial casualties and arrests (estimated at 1-2,000 a month) suggests a larger force.
• The number of men who have become effectively "stateless" and "jobless" is very large.

A good place to start with an analysis of the correct size of the insurgency was accomplished in a report by an associate (likely DIA) of Pat Lang (Download iraqs_insurgency.pdf). This report completes its analysis with an estimate of the size of the insurgency based on likely participants. This list of participants falls into the following groups:

• Saddam Fedayeen.
• Senior and mid-level Republican Guard and Army officers.
• Secret police and other agencies.
• Foreign Jihadis.
• Senior Baathists.

Given the size of these groups before the war, and the relatively light casualties they suffered during the short campaign, these groups represent a large pool of unscathed participants. Additionally, the ongoing actions of the current government of Iraq to exclude these men from civil life has left them effectively "stateless" and therefore likely very resentful due to falling standards of living and power. I have taken the numbers in the analysis and did some light corrections and additional analysis. The table to the left shows a weighted average of the likely participation of these men in ongoing guerrilla activities. Also, I've added a estimate of the number of Sunni men outside these groups (in tribes and gangs) that are also likely participants. The net result is that we are likely facing an insurgency of 184,800 men.

Comments

[CK]

Does that 184,000 include the brothers, cousins, nephews, nieces, sons and friends of the over 100,000 iraqi civilians considered to be collateral damage? The CIA factbook considers Iraq to have had a population of 26 million.
The govt figures suggest that 1 in 1300 iraqi's have a beef with the US occupation.
The compiliation cited above suggest about 7 in 1000 have a beef.
At 7 in 1000 our military has already killed or captured that many who held the rank of #2 lientenant to Zarqawi already.

[gmoke]

What was the figure they were batting around on Capitol Hill today? I thought it was something like one tenth of one percent which would be about 21,000 people if Iraq has a population of 21 million.

[Adam]

Interesting. Historically (Malaysia, anyway, and a completely different situation but its one of the few) normal military forces have to outnumber guerillas by roughly 10 to 1 in order to win. Currently the implication is that the US is actually outnumbered by the resistance, which is a radical turn-around.

Can the US field an army of 2 million men and women in Iraq? The numbers would imply a draft is needed. If so, is there the political will?

[CK]

The political will would depend on WHO is going to get drafted. And whether the draftees will be allowed to keep their personal computers and their videocellphones and their digital cameras.

[TT]

"The table to the left shows a weighted average of the likely participation of these men in ongoing guerrilla activities. Also, I've added a estimate of the number of Sunni men outside these groups (in tribes and gangs) that are also likely participants. The net result is that we are likely facing an insurgency of 184,800 men."

average ... likely ... estimate -- sheesh. That's all guesswork. I'd go with the guys who are seeing the fighting with their own eyes.

[John Robb]

I am going to post a more complete analysis that this short brief early next week (if I don't get it published).

BTW TT, I don't think you understand how military intelligence works.

[Lupin3]

I think it's almost certainly true that the insurgency (Baathist and al Qaida combined) number more than 21k. How many, after all, have Coalition forces captured or killed since 2003?

Still, TT makes a valid point: this report amounts to little more than abstract guess-work. It's impossible to check sources, validate primary or secondary methodologies, or in any other way to correlate the data you've provided with any tangible, physical evidence.

Having said that, you've clearly demonstrated that a case for an insurgency with much greater support than previously estimated is at least believable - or rather, imaginable.

Still, I wonder why you don't seem to have taken into account the increasing number of attacks on the Iraqis themselves by the insurgency, particularly upon those not affiliated with the Coalition protected government. This is an important element of the Pentagon's narrative of decreasing Baathist and nationalist Iraqi participation in the insurgency, paired with increasing al Qaida activity, with it's reliance on non-Iraqi "fighters."

Too, relying as you have upon "poll" data, I find it odd that at least a passing mention of what Sharansky calls a "fear society" is, and the distortions it is likely to have on poll results and local commentary.

It's an interesting argument, but without more emphasis on quantifiable, "real world" data, I fail to see how it reduces the "mental isolation" it attempts to correct.

[John Robb]

Lupin, I am in the same boat as the military intelligence guys. Given the quantity and quality of the data they have (which is not much), they are doing EXACTLY what I am doing (although I think this approach is a better way to formulate an estimate). If you want to guage the sentiment of the ex military officers (which determines participation rates), read this:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article315787.ece

[Andrew]

Very likely.. Now, I'm going to tell you something that happened well before the war started in Iraq. Back in January 2003, a Kurdish friend of mine in Europe told me that intelligence gathered by Kurdish groups was telling a story of Saddam planning to do a "Stalingradish" defense of Baghdad. The officers of the Republican Guard were told to study the Soviet defense of Stalingrad. Books were given out on the issue.

(Of course, in order for "Stalingradish" tactics to work, you have to have an environment resembling Stalingrad. The adversary must bomb the infrastructure out of recognition, creating excellent operational ground for the insurgency. Now, I haven't been to Iraq yet, so I don't know how much the infrastructure resembles Stalingrad.)

The "Stalingrad" intelligence was already telling that this insurgency was planned well before the war. Since when? Well, only Saddam and his high-ranking officers know. Also, another proof is the sudden "disappearance" of the Republican Guards. Their conventional strength was crushed in the first Gulf War. The "official line" of Pentagon seems to be that all these soldiers "abandoned" their positions and became civilians. This is pure BS. This is an organized insurgency. From the very first beginning. Where are all these Republican Guards, Fedayeens, etc?

The number of insurgents presented in the report is a good estimate.

[John Robb]

Saddam did initiate this, although it has gone well beyond his original plans (in true 21st Century fashion: it shattered into fragments).

He set up caches of weapons and funds all over the country and trained teams to set up insurgent networks. Brought in Chechen advisors. Etc.

[Ken]

One of the rules of thumb with guerrilla warfare is that about 2% of a population will actually fight at sometime or another. Obviously that figure does not include the population at large who support the guerrillas.

If we take the Sunni population of Iraq to be five million, then 2% is about 100,000. You could add to that figure a number from the Badrist Shia who have also fought the Americans, and who seem to be fighting the British now, and probably reach the almost 200,000 that you have suggested.

None of this is rocket science: numbers will fluctuate during any given month as various groups decide to take a break, figure out new tactics or recover from American attacks.

We will find out exactly how many there are at the end of the war when they have their victory parade.

[Greg Burton]

I like the "ball of mercury" metaphor better than fragments, John. Valdis (I believe)did some work on optimal network sizes, and on how the small functional networks could merge when needed to form a medium network without the loss of effectiveness that a linear growth pattern exhibits during the transition. It seems to me that clusters will form and stabilize, but will merge for particular situations, then split off again.

So "fragments" doesn't convey the essentially networked nature of the smaller units of insurgency, and works against understanding the way they are capable of responding.

[John Robb]

Fragmentation leads to a more varied set of recombinations.

[Jack Bauer]

I disagree. I think you've over-inflated the figure. Surely it's 181,387. Sorry... I'm now coming out at 217,312... sorry, I'm now down to 31,462.. no, it's up again to 53,769, uh--uh, now it down to 16,832. Gee this could go on all night.

[John Robb]

Jack, the funny thing is that nobody seems to have questioned the current estimate. It is being repeated without question.

Wait until you see my more comprehensive analysis on this.

[Valdis]

Read the recent issue of Time -- an article called "Saddam's Revenge" all about how he started the insurgency. It talks about how he long ago set up this internal para-military network in case he was deposed by Iraqis. When it looked like America would invade, he gave the order to "start re-building your networks".

Didn't anyone wonder why it was sooooo easy to get to Baghdad?

[um]

The term 'insurgency' as used here is misleading. A foreign jihadi (whom you list among "the insurgency"'s participants, I take it?) who travels to Iraq and detonates a bomb amidst a large crowd of Iraqi civilians may be legitimately called by many names, but 'insurgent' is not one of them.

This misapplied definition can affect whatever you think the ramifications are of any tally you think you have obtained, of course.

[The Dark Avenger]

None of the figures I've seen estimate the foreign jihadis at more than 10%, some lowball it at 5%.

Even so, the highest figure would bring the figure down to only 166K, it's still a lot of people.

John, what do you think about the recent report in the LAT a few weeks ago that Al Quaeda is starting to attract more Iraqi to their organization, that it's increasingly being seen as the best-financed and the strongest insurgent movement in Iraq?

[Adam]

Um,

From the Oxford English Dictionary. insurgent /insurjnt/
• adjective rising in active revolt.
• noun a rebel or revolutionary.
— DERIVATIVES insurgence noun insurgency noun (pl. insurgencies).
— ORIGIN from Latin insurgere ‘rise up’.

Nothing about similar nationality or religion in that description. Any person rising in active revolt (which I think can be easily agreed upon in the case Iraq) would be an insurgent.

Personally I prefer resistance. Again from the OED - noun 1 the action of resisting. 2 (also resistance movement) a secret organization resisting political authority.

[Steve L]

All,

Knowing your opposition's strength and composition is vital, it is from this that you craft a strategy to defeat him. A quantitative analysis of the situation will have to based upon assumptions because we do not have a true picture of all of the parameters involved. I look forward to John's analysis and his assumptions.

Quantitatively I would take 10 percent and multiply it by 25 million for 250,000 folks. I base this number on qualitative experience.

Qualitative on the ground data from northern iraq: unemployment and embarrassment over the ease of the occupation were high. I endured amatuer 'spray and pray', skilled indirect fire, and managed to avoid the 'pro's' when they cleaned house with ruthless ambushes. My iraqi friends advised me that set rates were paid for different types of attacks upon the coalition (sniping, ieds, mortars, rockets) to 'Joe-Iraqi'. They also advised me of baathist's and 'wahabis' with grudges.

My take was this; Joe-Iraqi takes potshots when it all gets to be too much (no money, no electricity, and no water in 130 F summers is a real piss me off), ex-Military folk are very upset over the dissolution of the Military and late/lacking paychecks ( I have been in riots when they don't get paid), and pro's from outside the country are looking for a fight (if they can do it, infidels and jews will be removed from the holy land).

The solution to this mess is a full-spectrum one. The sanctions and post OIF looting and anarchy have just about wrecked Iraq. Idle hand's are the devil's playground. A massive and effective WPA type program is needed to get Joe-Iraqi off the streets and working. Iraqi technocrat's need to run this program. Iraqi politicians need to build a functional government. Iraqi security-types need to provide security. Foreign contractors doing grunt work are not the answer.

The coalition and neighboring states need to provide security, cash, and oversight until this program gets going. It will not be done to American standards or on a rapid timeline. If it were easy, it would already be done. Until we get serious about energy independence this is our fate.

[Steve L]

Sorry, dropped a zero, meant 2,500,000 folks. Yes it's a large number, however opposition to the coalition comes in many forms. Are all these people duking it out with us daily? No, don't underestimate the upset.

[um]

Adam,

For some reason you seem to think that the comment you posted is a rebuttal to the one I posted. Um, it's not.

[Adam]

Um you merely said that foreigners in Iraq against the occupation are not insurgents. I believe the phrase you used was "misleading".

I demonstrated that the OED definition of insurgent fits the situation reasonably exactly, although I pointed out that resistance is possibly better (in my view anyway).

Does that clarification make things easier?

[um]

I see. If I've read you correctly, what you seem to think I said is that merely being foreign makes one not an insurgent. That is not what I said. I said (by implication) that a "foreign jihadi... who travels to Iraq and detonates a bomb amidst a large crowd of Iraqi civilians" is not an insurgent. Fighting (let alone being "against") a current authority and killing civilians are not synonymous or automatically consistent.

The 9/11 hijackers were "against" the US government, and killed numerous US civilians, but no one refers to them as "insurgents". Do you? In Iraq, for some reason, people engaged in a completely analogous activity suddenly become "insurgents"? Why?

And just to be clear, it's not even necessarily because of their foreignness per se that "insurgent" doesn't quite fit. Thus the dictionary definition not mentioning nativeness is irrelevant. That said, whatever the dictionary may say, I do find the notion of a "foreign insurgent" somewhat nonsensical. As your dictionary says, insurgent connotes rebellion, revolt. To rebel usually connotes to fight against your own authority, not someone else's. Obviously it's not unheard of to join someone else's rebellion out of sympathy (Spanish Civil War, Afghanistan, etc.) but if a rebellion consists of a significant amount of foreign fighters it would be folly for the other side to ignore that aspect and slap the same label on them as native insurgents.

We have other words, such as "invader" and/or "terrorist", which are already perfectly good, and more accurate, terms to describe such people. And to label an invasion or a terror campaign - or, in this case, an insurgency that is concurrent (sometimes cooperating, sometimes not) with an invasion/terror campaign - nothing more or less than an "insurgency" is to misdiagnose the problem entirely. We wouldn't want to do that, would we?

[Andrew]

Um,

A 4GW force, if they are able to operate in the country and if they know the country's in's and out's, don't count themselves as "foreigners". That's not even the point with this post. The point with the post was to put a number to the "Insurgents", "Foreign Jihadists", "Guerrillas", "Clan members" etc. Anyone that has the will and capability to kill American soldiers on Iraqi soil, should be added to that number.

I don't think you have even realized what "4GW" means, and what kind of war is being fought on the ground.

Plus, what you don't realize is that these "Foreign Jihadists" see Iraq as their soil. They see US troops as "invaders" or "foreigners". Objectively, what makes the Jihadists "foreign"? They speak the same language, believe in the same religion, eat the same food and laugh at the same jokes. It is their "Coalition Of The Willing". It's 4GW.

[Adam]

Um,

"We have other words, such as "invader" and/or "terrorist", which are already perfectly good, and more accurate, terms to describe such people."

Just to check, given that you appeared earlier to be talking about foreigners working in Iraq against the US, you do agree , or at least accept, that its the West that invaded Iraq?

The reason I ask is that re-reading your latest post it could appear that you're referring to the invading US forces, since a number of them, particularly in the Air Force, could be described as 'having gone to Iraq and detonated a bomb among civilians'.

If so then I am at least confused and might even have to admit to being flummoxed as to what point you're making. Are you suggesting that people invited to defend a nation against a foreign invasion force are themselves invaders? Its a point of view, I suppose, but not one I think that I'd share.

Otherwise Andrew said it far more eloquently than I could. The bottom line is that the insurgents against the US includes some foreigners. The ironic reverse is that the foreign US-led forces in Iraq contain some Iraqis.

[Adam]

Returning to numbers, the US forces in Iraq number around 150k (US-controlled Iraqi troops are at this stage clearly utterly worthless and can be discounted). The guerillas number around 180k. This means that the US is functionally outnumbered, a disasterous situation during a guerilla campaign where (dubious) history suggests that 10:1 odds are required.

If so then it might explain why the US is reduced to assaults on near-hamlets. Yesterday's offensive against Sadah (population 2000) required 2,500 troops (half US, half Iraqi). On the same ratio - 1.25 US soldiers to every 2 Iraqis - the big towns and cities would need hundreds of thousands of US troops, which implies that they aren't worth approaching.

The upshot would seem to be that the numbers hint that the US has given up on controlling the major towns and is instead focussing on the unpopulated areas where no-one lives. Effectively this could be the start of an informal pull-out, leaving the populated areas to the Iraqis, whilst the US forces can exist in the deserts.

[um]

Andrew,

you seem so enamored of the term 4GW that apparently no further thought is required, mere intonation of the term 4GW. Good for you, but meanwhile, what you wrote does not counter what I wrote. I don't doubt that the people under discussion don't "count themselves as" foreigners, and that they "see Iraq as their soil". Similarly Nazi Germans "saw" Sudetenland as "their" soil, China "sees" Taiwan as "their" soil, etc. That does not change the fact that they are foreigners in Iraq (just as Germans were and Chinese would be) and belong in a separate category from insurgents. Finally, you note that the point of the above post was to count them right along with Insurgents. Well, yeah, I got that! Indeed that's why I responded, because to do this, and make no meaningful distinctions among them, is misleading (at best).

Adam,

yes of course the West/the Coalition/the U.S./whatever you wanna call it invaded Iraq, in March 2003 IIRC. Soon after (perhaps before as well), foreign jihadis invaded Iraq and apparently they continue to do so. The two invasions are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps "infiltrated" will be a word more to you liking; it does not affect the content of what I was saying.

Could what I wrote refer to US forces? Almost but not quite. Yes there are undoubtedly times when the US detonated explosives that were in the proximity of civilians. However, they were never (as far as you or I know) the intended target. That is the difference between an invading and occupying force causing collateral damage (which is what the US is), and invading/infiltrating terrorists committing terror and mass murder (which is what the foreign jihadis are). I probably should append "intentionally" to some of my earlier posts to clarify then. Anyway, the point is, in neither case are the actors insurgents.

You write: "Are you suggesting that people invited to defend a nation against a foreign invasion force are themselves invaders?"

You are begging the question multiple times over here to the point that this question is nonsensical. Who exactly "invited" these people? Did the "inviters" have the right to do this "inviting"? On what basis? Whom do the "inviters" represent, if anyone? And most critically, in what perverted sense is a jihadi from Saudi Arabia who goes to Iraq blows up 100 Shiite civilians "defend[ing] [Iraq] against a foreign invasion force"? What the hell kind of sense does that make?

Imagine that you take it upon yourself to "invite" an army from, oh, Mozambique to come to the US, direct them to kill, oh I dunno, anyone they find who's Filipino, and then explain that you're doing this to "defend" against an invasion of Frenchmen. That would make about as much sense. I guess I can only say that Yes, the Mozambiquan army would be an invasion force. Your "invitation", however sincere, wouldn't change that.

Anyway, this addled thinking illustrates perfectly why it's so misleading (if not downright idiotic) to just blindly slap the term "insurgent" on basically any non-Westerner who draws someone's blood in Iraq. You seem to be literally at the point where you think, or assume, or something, that any non-Westerner who kills someone somewhere in Iraq is - no matter what the details - in the process of "defending" Iraq from the US. WTF?!

[um]

P.S. Seems to me that the US military was "invited" (by at least some Iraqis, some of whom I could even name), repeatedly over the course of many years, to come to Iraq and defend it against the ongoing unjust tyranny of Saddam Hussein. By your logic, I guess that the US weren't and aren't invaders either then. That is, if you're consistent.

Alternatively, it's possible that you consider one invitation (those who "invite" foreign jihadis) legitimate, but the other invitation (those who "invited" the US) illegitimate in some sense. The latter invitation "doesn't count" to make us not invaders, but the former invitation was completely sufficient to give any jihadi anywhere in the world license to go to Iraq, kill people, and call it "defending" Iraq.

But why on earth would that be? Why would you concede the logic of the jihadis? Or... never mind, don't answer that, because you know something, I don't really want to know.

[nic]

Applying one's own life experience to other society trying to understand their motivation makes no sence. You often think that some of your assumptions are facts, as they sounds so basic to you. But they are still assumptions, and when your handlings with other societies is not working, you became puzzled. What's wrong? Too many insurgents? Our inafficiency? Former saddam people have no jobs? All wrong. The answer is different: wrong assumptions. This society does not share your basic christianity inspired assumptions. This is Orient: you either has to be efficient or 'moral' in your sence. You got to do what is efficient in that particular society. Which is being ruthless, as Saddam and others has demonstrated. Especialy towards higher ups. Saddam foto with thermometer in his mouth made more to pacify Irak, than all military actions combimed. This is society of symbols. If you try to be 'moral' in your sence, they do not understand your motivations, and confuse it with something else, perhaps cowardness. If this time we were as ruthless as Swartzkoppf was the last time (remember kuwaity highway bombed), even of only on TV, I think there will be no insurgency, Iran and Syria would be pacified the same way Libia currently is (don't count on it any more), afgan opium would not be blossoming. Thousands of soldiers lives would have been spared, and the most important, the military moral would still be there. Just one loud ruthless resolute operation on TV would put an end to it.

Like israeli's done yesterday, arresting 500 key hamas people overnite, and killing a few big shots. They know addresses, so the can afford it. We need to either get their addresses as well or start thinking about repeating the kuwaity highway/dresden/horoshima thing. It does not matter how many are they, and whether they are payed. In Orient, they switch sides with ease. Appoint a sunny guy to something significant, give him some cash to pay more then other guys, give former insurgents their amnesty, destroy one sunny city on TV and thats the end of it, the rest will come to your Sunni guy for a pay and will werve well. If the city bombed is damaskus palace, you gotta have no foreign fighers the very next day. Reagan did it once. It works.

[Adam]

Um,

The invitation was first made by Sadaam Hussain. He did this on a number of occasions from 2002 onwards, particularly in the nationally televised defence council meetings, and later a number of times in tape recorded statements whilst in hiding. Following the invasion Grand Ayatollah Ali Hussenini Sistani issued on 25th March 2003 a fatwah requiring all Muslims to resist the invading infidel troops.

This is well off topic so I'd just point out that the email address is at the bottom.

[Adam]

Nic,

Problems with the mass murder solution (aka the Phoenix Programme 2) which was discussed and hopefully rejected in 2004:
a) the intelligence in non-existant. The odds are the the US military will be used to settle local claims and business disputes (being outsold by the fruit seller around the corner? No problem, call the US and they'll kill him for you. Living in an anarchy is not fun.)
b) the Israeli policy has been an utter failure. Since 1982 they've been defeated twice by Hamas, in South Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. In that time they've managed to legitimise the group most dedicated to their destruction, whilst eliminating the moderates who cannot claim the credit for Hamas' victory.
c) The US has destroyed a Sunni city, Fallujah. The operation was a dismal failure as the city is still not pacified even after being razed to the ground.
d) "In Orient they switch sides with ease". I disagree, in a civil war its always best to keep one eye open to the idea that your preferred side will lose. Certainly in the English Civil War Buckinghamshire changed sides several times. Nothing 'oriental' about that, merely realistic.
e) otherwise you've caught onto the preferred British solution of "the next man with the moustache" - find some general and leave him in charge, as long as he obeys orders. The US rejected this as it does not fit into Neo-Con theory, or support Israeli interests in the area. Hussain was a threat to Israel, the post-breakup Iraq will not be until the civil war ends.

And as for invading or bombing Syria, the US cannot control 25 million Iraqis, why add 18 million Syrians? There simply aren't enough insurgents coming over the border (in Sadah - right on the border - there were 20) to justify the effort.

Again this is arguably off topic so the email address is below.

[John Robb]

Going after the foreign jihadis is not being done because of their effectiveness, rather it's due to moral factors. They conduct some of the most high profile attacks and in particular those attacks that most enrage Shiites (whcih is helping to grow Shiite paramilitary groups). It makes perfect sense that this group should get the most attention (although it won't diminish US daily casualties or eliminate more than a small fraction of the insurgency).

[Marcello]

"afgan opium would not be blossoming"

Opium is blossoming because it is one of the few things that pays in a hellole like afghanistan.A couple of massacres elsewhere aren't going to change that.

"We need to either get their addresses as well or start thinking about repeating the kuwaity highway/dresden/horoshima thing"

The Kuwait highway turkey shoot: it was,IIRC,an application of the air land battle doctrine against retreating army columns.I fail to see what it accomplished of so extraordinary but maybe I missed something.

Dresden:quick history lesson, the germans did not surrender until Berlin was stormed.
Not exactly allies best moment either.

Hiroshima: well after TWO nuclear bombs, firebombing campaigns, the almost complete annihilation of the IJN,the threat of a massive invasion etc the japanese decided that maybe after all they had had enough.

I will also note that those two countries declared war on the USA, were very dangerous and committed barbaric acts on a massive scale.

What you are basically suggesting is basically that in a weak, defeated and occupied country we should single out some decent sized city,let's say in the 100k people range,cordon it off and firebomb it into ashes while shooting anyone who tries to escape.And then sending the tapes of that to Al Jazeera.
That because anything less than that has been attempted (Fallujah).And it has not worked very well.What I described is more or less the "Hama solution", although Mr Lind might object at the idea of recording it for the TV.

Will it work? Who knows?Maybe yes.
Can you keep babbling about freedom and democracy with a straight face after that?

[SteveL]

All,

Enclosed is an excellent compilation of the Iraqi Insurgency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency

[Marcello]

"This society does not share your basic christianity inspired assumptions."

Without doubts a lot of things are certainly done in different ways in those societies.
Crappy ways at that.
But I bet that at the end of the day if foreign soldiers, in your own country, terrorized your family during a sweep you would be pretty pissed too.Wouldn't you want to make those bastards pay?
That isn't iraqi or arab or american or what not.That is just human.

"You got to do what is efficient in that particular society. Which is being ruthless, as Saddam and others has demonstrated."

Saddam was not just ruthless.He was also:
1)A local dictator and not a puppet of foreigners.
This is important because the same things that might be basically ignored if done by the local dictator (Hama being just this sort of case if I have understood correctly) will arouse anger if done by foreign invaders or their lackeys.
2)He had the connections.
3)He made the trains run on time,sort of.

Ruthlessness can carry you only so far.You need consent as well.And for that you need to deliver the goodies.And the coalition has not been very good at that.

[nic]

Marcello,
again what is a basic "human" patterns to you, like consent, freedom, human, democracy are foreign terms out there. Its not 'human', it's post-cristendom 20-century ortodox humanism terms and has nothing to do with reality just with a fancy theories of late 20th century. To do a forecast one first has to do a analisys right first. So far analysis has been wrong most of the time. Perhaps because people who supposed to do analysis have been in a credit claiming game with little regards to actually achieving long time goals.
Its really pathetic that the people who suppose to protect us, cannot protect their own headquarters, the pentagon, from a bunch of silly loosers. How do they think to protect us from russians or chineese?

Or euro goverment officials relying on newspapers as a source of information to make their judgements. Think about it!
We are governed by a bunch of loosers without a clue and no desire for make responsible actions, whatever their party affiliations.

There has been no opium harvesting under Taliban, no insurgency under Saddam, these.
There should be a reason, why what was easy for them, is so hard for us.

Its time to grew up, because soon it will be too late. Its time to make a decision. And mindless Europe will eventually thank us again for saving them from yet another savagery they are trying so hard to get into all the time. Not just another guy with mustaches please, but a right man, mustaches optional.

[Adam]

Nic,

"Or euro goverment officials relying on newspapers as a source of information to make their judgements. Think about it!"

National governments have always used newspapers and newspaper reporters for information or non-official covers. Kim Philby leaps to mind.

Real spies or intelligence agents are very expensive to the point that the US didn't have any in Iraq in 2003. What was different in the run up to war was that the information in the "dodgy dossier" was meant to be the pure Intelligence stuff, and it turned out to be cribbed from the internet. In David Kelly's legendary phrase it was 'sexed up'.

"We are governed by a bunch of loosers without a clue and no desire for make responsible actions, whatever their party affiliations."

Thats democracy for you. Neither Blair nor Bush, or any of their close advisors, has any real military or geo-political experience. Also, its not, as the saying goes, their money. Neither is it, with professional soldiers, their problem. Both nations have a position that the professionals shouldn't come crying to them about being cripples as the squaddies knew what they were doing when they signed up.

"There has been no opium harvesting under Taliban, no insurgency under Saddam, these.
There should be a reason, why what was easy for them, is so hard for us."

Easy. The Taliban were popular, having halted the civil war and provided some form of peace. It may not have been a nice fluffy peace, as after all they were religious students, but after almost 30 years of war (and in Afghanistan the average life expectancy is 42) it beat the alternatives. The Taliban did it because a) it fit in with their dogma b) they were paid to, around $45 million and c) they worked with the local power structures, not against them. Sadaam provided consistency and minimal damage to those that kept out of politics. In neither case can the US claim these particular advantages, simply because of who they are and where they started from.

"Its time to grew up, because soon it will be too late. Its time to make a decision. And mindless Europe will eventually thank us again for saving them from yet another savagery they are trying so hard to get into all the time."

Europe was in favour of the invasion? Only the Bulgarians and the Poles, both of whom wanted shiny new US military bases and commercial contracts from the war. And they were let down badly. And what savagery are the US saving Europe from? A few random bomb blasts seen over a half-decade? I'd worry more about being run over crossing the road. No, I don't think Europe can be called mindless. Their analysis of the Iraqi disaster was exactly right.

I have no idea where the Iraqis and Afghans became savages. The Iraqis I knew were decent, if cynical, people and, as a group, highly educated. I can't claim to know any Afghans (although one of my colleagues is a Pakistani girl from Peshawar just off the Khyber Pass) and she says that they're nice, extremely poor, and quite willing to kill anyone that upsets them.

"Not just another guy with mustaches please, but a right man, mustaches optional. "

Forget it. The British plan was to use the Iraqi army, now disbanded. Before that any general will do, functionally they're interchangeable and all they need is the ability to kneel down and take orders. Preferably a Sunni, who as the third place people, will be nicely grateful. (Shi'ites are pro-Iranian and the majority, so they'll be ungrateful. Kurds are second place with cartloads of US support, but can see no further than Kirkuk - plus the Turks will sooner or later invade any Kurdish region.)

[Marcello]

"again what is a basic "human" patterns to you, like consent, freedom, human, democracy are foreign terms out there. Its not 'human', it's post-cristendom 20-century ortodox humanism terms and has nothing to do with reality just with a fancy theories of late 20th century"

Look,I am speaking about a foreign soldier stomping a boot on your face
at a roadblock, terrorizing your family during a sweep and killing one of your relatives.No matter what culture you come from, these things tend to drive people nut.This isn't high minded political philosophy.

"And mindless Europe will eventually thank us again for saving them from yet another savagery they are trying so hard to get into all the time."

Saving us from what exactly?
Bin Laden riding into the Vatican on a white horse?
Do not make me laugh.
A few bombs on the trains?
We have already been here, done that and survived.

"Its time to grew up, because soon it will be too late."

Yes.For a start the Cold War is over, get over it.Then aquiring some perspective and stop acting as scared little children would help.

[Marcello]

Nazi Germany had a powerful army.They could conquer countries and enforce policies that killed millions.
Al Qaeda has box cutters.The cannot even dream of matching the death toll of car accidents.
It is imperative to keep cool and avoid playing into their game.