An Old-fashioned War

[Brian B]

Bill,
Good places to start and discuss on your strategy and COA's. Like the ideas for our withdrawal as the job continues to be wrapped up, especially with the public statements that need to be made while simultaneously withdrawing as situations dictate.

I am thankful for the support we do get from home and any cheerleading that comes with it. But no one else has had to bear the brunt of this war beyond the military and our families. No disagreement from me on those points.

You said we were pissing off the Iraqi's in populated areas, which I know we are in some cases. Sometimes they love us being there when we provide the security and stability, but when we don't we can be complicating.
I sometimes hear others take that a step further and say that "our presence is fueling the insurgency" which I have trouble getting my head around.

When they attack us directly, I can see that point. When they attack the ISF because they simply are an extension of our presence or our policy, I can even see their thought process and how they might justify that to themselves. But on days like yesterday when so many civilians are targeted, how could that be our presence fueling the insurgency? Any thoughts from anyone on this? What angle or perspective am I missing?
Personally I don't agree with that line of thinking and feel it's for personal reasons as we discussed in the "Insurgents on Drugs" thread and for an endstate of destabilization to establish a safe haven i.e. Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Opened up for beating and/or enlightenment from all.....

[Merv Benson]

I think the enemy attacks non combatants because it is too weak to attack US forces or the Iraqi forces. He must rely on ambiguity as to time and place of attack and pick soft targets. The election in December is a good example of this. The time of voting was fixed as were the places of voting and those places were defended while the polls were opened. The results were few if any attacks. In the last year I can recall only two attacks by the enemy on defended positions both of which failed. One was near Qaim and the other was at Abu Ghraid. Most of the other action has been defensive responses when US and Iraqi forces are attacking. His other method of attack is passive booby traps. Attacks on non combatants continue to be counter productive within Iraq. Bill Roggio's latest report at Threatswatch.com indicates the Sunnis in Ramadi are furious with al Qaeda about the attacks.

[Jedburgh]

I think the enemy attacks non combatants because it is too weak to attack US forces or the Iraqi forces. He must rely on ambiguity as to time and place of attack and pick soft targets. The election in December is a good example of this. The time of voting was fixed as were the places of voting and those places were defended while the polls were opened. The results were few if any attacks. In the last year I can recall only two attacks by the enemy on defended positions both of which failed. One was near Qaim and the other was at Abu Ghraid. Most of the other action has been defensive responses when US and Iraqi forces are attacking. His other method of attack is passive booby traps. Attacks on non combatants continue to be counter productive within Iraq. Bill Roggio's latest report at Threatswatch.com indicates the Sunnis in Ramadi are furious with al Qaeda about the attacks.

Remember - there is no monolithic single enemy in Iraq. We face a number of indigenous factions ranging from Islamists to secular Ba'athists, as well as Zarqawi's bunch of foreigners.

I do not feel that "weakness" is what is behind the attacks on civilians. I believe they are very purposefully targeted with the strategic goal of goading the Shi'a into massive bloody reprisals against ordinary Sunni Arabs as a way of inciting civil war. (If you haven't, I recommend taking a look at Terrill's Strategic Implications of Intercommunal Warfare in Iraq )

Bill Roggio demonstrates his misunderstanding of Al-Qa'ida when he states "....al-Qaeda often oversteps its bounds in Iraq...". The bounds he alludes to do not exist - Al-Qa'ida in Iraq has never truly viewed the Sunni Arab population as a "natural base of support". Al-Qa'ida's ultimate goal is not to help Sunni Arabs regain control in Iraq - their goal is to humiliate the US and drive us out by whatever means necessary, using and manipulating the indigenous population with cold calculation. The ends justify the means. They have no real concern for broad Iraqi Sunni Arab support, beyond the narrow transitory and local measures needed to infiltrate who and what it needs to continue to carry out such attacks.

In this context, the Ramadi attack clearly demonstrated Al-Qa'ida's view of anyone who supports the current Iraqi administration and, by extension, US goals in Iraq. They weren't "overstepping their bounds" - they were sending a message.