NationStates Jolt Archive

The growing sophistication of the Iraqi insurgency is rather worrying. Tonight there were three large explosions in the 'green zone' in Baghdad. Initially they were though to be the results of insurgents taking pot-shots with mortars (as usual), but then journalists released footage (the attacks were close to the Palestine and Sheradon hotels were many foreign journalists are located). A camera pointed at the square where the Saddam statue was toppled clearly shows the attack. A first explosion blows a hole through the wall of the 'green zone', and then a cement mixer edges its way across the square, before it detonates.

I guess people are going to reply saying either 'the insurgents will win, we should withdraw our troops' or 'this shows they have Iranian support, let's invade Iran as well', but from a neutral standpoint you have to wonder how much more sophisticated the insurgency will get - if they can breach the 'green zone' in an organised attack, is anywhere in Iraq safe?

The two logical choices would be either to withdraw immediately, completely, and permanently, or firebomb the country into oblivion. However, because I am vehemently anti-war and opposed to violence, I would prefer the first choice over the second one. But that's just me.

It means that the insurgents are getting better with their tactics. They've been able to observe the enemy and make tactical chances and evolve their attacks over a period of time.

I´m curious:
What is the difference between these insurgants and, say, the afghani resistance against the Soviets?

I´m curious:
What is the difference between these insurgants and, say, the afghani resistance against the Soviets?
They're Iraqi? They're fighting different people in a different time in a different place? They've got better beards?

I´m curious:
What is the difference between these insurgants and, say, the afghani resistance against the Soviets?
The difference is that the resistance fighters in Afghanistan were fighting an enemy that wanted to invade, and control the region infefinately.

The insurgants in Iraq are fighting a force that just wanted to get rid of a mass murdering dictator with a history of using WMD's, and give the people of that country the control that they deserve.

Simply put, the Russians weren't gonna leave. We are, and the insurgents know it! They aren't fighting for liberation of the people, they are fighting to gain control of the populace for a small minority of evil religious fanatics that stone women to death for showing their face in public.

Shall I go on?

I´m curious:
What is the difference between these insurgants and, say, the afghani resistance against the Soviets?
These guys aren't funded/trained/equipped by the CIA;)
*ducks*

I´m curious:
What is the difference between these insurgants and, say, the afghani resistance against the Soviets?
These ones are fighting Americans... Please don't troll in my thread.

I´m curious:
What is the difference between these insurgants and, say, the afghani resistance against the Soviets?

Americans like one of them,americans don't like the other.i dont think i need to tell you which is which

These ones are fighting Americans... Please don't troll in my thread.
I don't think that person was trolling. They were asking a perfectly valid question.

The difference is that the resistance fighters in Afghanistan were fighting an enemy that wanted to invade, and control the region infefinately.

Whereas th US wanted to ...? the Iraq and stay until they installed an administration to their liking?

The insurgants in Iraq are fighting a force that just wanted to get rid of a mass murdering dictator with a history of using WMD's,

I wonder: why not get rid of him when you already have him by his balls, a.k.a. 1991, but instead give him another 12 years to have fun?

and give the people of that country the control that they deserve.

I take it you mean this along the lines of "give them democratic self-control", not "they deserve being controlled by nicer guys than Saddam Hussein". Then I´m with you, again wondering "Why now?"

Simply put, the Russians weren't gonna leave. We are, and the insurgents know it!

So it´s alright if i break into your house and make myself comfortable, smashing a few vases and such, having a go at your fridge,as long as I clean up a bit and leave again, because i don´t want to stay?
Besides, will the US Army (="we"?) really leave? Breaking down those expensive camps just after "we" built them would be highly cost-unefficient, now, would it?

They aren't fighting for liberation of the people, they are fighting to gain control of the populace for a small minority of evil religious fanatics that stone women to death for showing their face in public.

So, you informed yourself about the Mudjaheddin?

Shall I go on?

Please.

I don't think that person was trolling. They were asking a perfectly valid question.

Thanks for your credit, took me a while to correct typos. ;)

The difference is that the resistance fighters in Afghanistan were fighting an enemy that wanted to invade, and control the region infefinately.

Whereas th US wanted to ...? the Iraq and stay until they installed an administration to their liking?

The time limit makes no difference. After all, RML makes a good point. As the Soviets wanted to install a government to their liking, it seems the Americans are doing the same.

Further, the Americans are showing no signs of leaving... especially any time soon.


The insurgants in Iraq are fighting a force that just wanted to get rid of a mass murdering dictator with a history of using WMD's,
I wonder: why not get rid of him when you already have him by his balls, a.k.a. 1991, but instead give him another 12 years to have fun?

Or... you know, employ CIA style tactics from the Cold War and assassinate the SOB and his cronies, then move in with the intention of "stabilising". Fabricate some evidence that Iran did it and that you're there to help.

But if we had taken him out so many years ago, we would've had Georgie Snr get reelected... :p


and give the people of that country the control that they deserve.

I take it you mean this along the lines of "give them democratic self-control", not "they deserve being controlled by nicer guys than Saddam Hussein". Then I´m with you, again wondering "Why now?"

C'mon, we both know that SN means the US controlling Iraq and Hussein being shoved aside because he wasn't being a good puppet. :D


Simply put, the Russians weren't gonna leave. We are, and the insurgents know it!

So it´s alright if i break into your house and make myself comfortable, smashing a few vases and such, having a go at your fridge,as long as I clean up a bit and leave again, because i don´t want to stay?
Besides, will the US Army (="we"?) really leave? Breaking down those expensive camps just after "we" built them would be highly cost-unefficient, now, would it?

After all, look at the numerous military bases around the world. Many of them are being left there as is because there were no plans to leave.

Hmn... it makes me wonder... if the insurgents know that the Americans are going to leave, wouldn't that give them a damn good reason to let up on the attacks rather than increasing them? I mean, if they are getting their way, it makes no sense to continue, does it? Of course, the Americans say they won't and the insurgents aren't ready to declare "Mission Accomplished".


They aren't fighting for liberation of the people, they are fighting to gain control of the populace for a small minority of evil religious fanatics that stone women to death for showing their face in public.

So, you informed yourself about the Mudjaheddin?

If they had, they'd also note that there were strict rules for men as well, though those seem so lax in contrast to the ones for women.

You don't see the irony in that statement do you? SN is ignoring the growing religious right movement in the US that is fighting to control the populance all for the sake of 'traditional moral values'... ;)


Shall I go on?

Please.
Do go on...

http://www.kristianhoffman.com/images/mumps/mumps-tea-party.jpg

Thanks for your credit, took me a while to correct typos. ;)
Everyone makes typos. Don't worry about it.

http://www.kristianhoffman.com/images/mumps/mumps-tea-party.jpg
How the hell...? I don't see it...

How the hell...? I don't see it...

You know, sophisticated. Tea-drinking is a sign of sophistication.

Oh forget it.

I don't think that person was trolling. They were asking a perfectly valid question.
To which we all already know the answer. Every country hypocritically calls the people it likes 'the resistance' or 'freedom fighters' and those it doesn't 'the insurgency' or 'terrorists'. If this subject needs any more discussion it's for another thread - this thread was intended as a discussion about growing sophistication in the tactics of 'the insurgency'. Perhaps I should have used the term 'guerillas' instead, but everyone is used to the term 'the insurgency' so even lefties like me tolerate it. (I hate having arguments with people with whose views I generally agree...)

You don't see the irony in that statement do you? SN is ignoring the growing religious right movement in the US that is fighting to control the populance all for the sake of 'traditional moral values'... ;)

Well, I wanted to avoid seeming overtly anti-neocon ;)
I rather wanted to point out that the goals of the mudjaheddin didn´t differ that much from the goals of the "Iraqui insurgence", as he put it. Actually, quite a large percentage of the current fighters in Iraq are, or are recruited and trained,
by Afghanistan veterans, who in turn were trained and equipped by ...,um, no.

Btw, I remember mullah Omar, the head of the late taliban - may-they-rot-in-a-really-unpleasant-place - , said something along the lines "We told the Americans all the time what we planned after the Soviets were out, they just didn´t want to listen."

You know, sophisticated. Tea-drinking is a sign of sophistication.

Oh forget it.
Ah yes... Now if they had guns, it'd be funny! ^_^ nice!

To which we all already know the answer. Every country hypocritically calls the people it likes 'the resistance' or 'freedom fighters' and those it doesn't 'the insurgency' or 'terrorists'. If this subject needs any more discussion it's for another thread - this thread was intended as a discussion about growing sophistication in the tactics of 'the insurgency'. Perhaps I should have used the term 'guerillas' instead, but everyone is used to the term 'the insurgency' so even lefties like me tolerate it. (I hate having arguments with people with whose views I generally agree...)

Sorry for hijacking.
As for the topic, i guess the reason for the growing sophistications is less rooted in free trade with ceylon, but mainly time (again, not 5 o´clock).
After the inital shock-and-awe war, the guerilla had time to build supply lines and silos, time to observe and analyze the enemy and, mainly, time to construct an enemy, thus getting support and recruits from the population (see Mao´s Theory of Guerilla Warfare).