why do people become insurgents

Remove all ads!

Pacman,

Is that so?

How about the foreign fighters (islamist, who, under Saddam have been repressed and actually never held any power in Iraq at all)? How about the shia fighters in the south (who have been repressed for a century as well and also never held any power at all)?
The well founded perception that their country is reshaped from Washington by Americans and not from within Iraq by Iraqis will sure hurt the national pride of Iraqis, and Iraqis are nationalistic, even the Shias, who preferred to fight with Saddam against Iran in their war.

You suggest that all insurgency is baathist and about deadenders. I think you're deluding yourself here.

The insurgency isn't homogenic but heterogenic and chaotic - with various groups with various conflicting political, religious and simply criminal backgrounds.

With the sanctions and the decade of bombing and the last war and the following occupation with its widespread "collateral damage" even ordinary Iraqis may well have a reason to loathe or hate the US without being baathist or pro-Saddam. Iirc statistically every Iraqi in Iraq knows someone personally who has been hurt or killed directly or indirectly by the US in the last fifteen years.

It isn't legal or moral causality that counts - but emotion and perception of the Iraqi population. When someone feels he has trouble with you, you usually have trouble with him - even if you wrap yourself in good and noble intentions.

As the saying goes: The opposite of "well done" is "well meant".

The US in Iraq, with remarkable incompetence and naivity, have 'achieved' that a pro-western regime can only survive politically if it becomes more or less anti-US - be it only to reassure their subjects that they are not US-stooges like their current pres Allawi or Chalabi.

And that after investing a thousand US troups and uncounted hundred billions of taxpayer dollars. Now that's what I call a blunder.

An interesting Article from Foreign Affairs, titled Iraq: Winning the Unwinnable War.

I particularly like the authors idea to hand the coordination of 'fighting' the insurgency over to the brits because of their unparalleled experience and proven competence - and take the army out and to rely on intelligence and police work rather than on JDAMS, gunships, artillery and Marines.
I mean, huh, that is from Pentagon's oldest think tank. Probably it has now been subversively undermined by defaitist and unpatriotic liberals

 

Hi, everybody. Justice is not dead in the U.S.; just a little muted perhaps. After all, the sergeant who ordered the deed did get six months in prison and a one-grade reduction in rank; and I'm confident that if it had been a girl below age 10 who died, it would've been three years and a Bad Conduct discharge (with time off for good behavior). And incidentally the White House assistant who penned the memo justifying torture, referring to the Geneva Convention as "quaint" and "outmoded" is now nominated to be the next Attorney-General of the U.S., and will probably get it, despite outrageous waffling on questions relating to his support of torture: "I don't understand the question.", "I don't see how that is relevant.", etc., etc. It's the dawn of a bright new day, as Goering might have remarked looking at the glowing sky above the burning Reichstag.

I agree 100% with Chevalier's comments.

Where Do Terrorists Come From?: In medieval times people believed that flies generated spontaneously from piles of manure. Perhaps terrorists have the same provenance.

[ January 09, 2005, 02:15: Message edited by: Cernak ]

 

Six months is a small price to pay for a human life - but I guess Iraqi lives don't count for much. I agree with Tal, it's a bad day for American justice.

 

I am not sure what you mean as I do not see an NI/Iraq connection. N.Ireland has not been oppressed by the UK since the early 1980's (and I am speaking of very mild oppression like giving Protestants better working conditions in certain types of employment). Things are more or less equal here.

N.I. is also a nation of hypocrites. Travel to a Catholic estate of Twinbrook outside of Belfast and you will find 'Brits out' etc slogans and IRA murals and you will also find a bar called 'Liverpool Supporters Bar'. They love all things British except the people hmmmmm.

Back on topic the insurgents are fighting people they see as a genuine enemy, someone that is culturally and religiously different which is very diffenent than here (well that is what I observe).

Would you be happy if some foreigners had blown up your home with family (including young children). Just victims of circumstances?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4159521.stm

[ January 10, 2005, 12:42: Message edited by: Cesard ]

 

I believe people become insurgents because they are uneducated and easily manipulated by others. If the stated goal was to get the U.S. out of Iraq all they would have to do is stop the violence, have peaceful elections, and then we would be out of there as fast as we could get the planes and naval transports loaded.

However, that doesn't fit into the agenda of some people. To paraphrase the situation "You never saw Arafat strap a bomb to his chest." Most insurgents are doing things that are getting themselves killed or at the very least putting themselves in danger for the benefits of others. Whom those others are, I have no idea, but I would place money on the fact that they exist.

 

That's a popular thing to say, but I disagree - insurgents are just as smart, maybe smarter, or as dumb, maybe dumber, as you are or I am.

History of political terror groups has shown that the people in them are by large better educated and have developed political or religious consiousness, from stays in foreign countries and contact with other cultures, or in studies, maybe theological studies.
The first generation of german RAF terrorists were highly intelligent and well educated. And just look at the 911 crew. Not a single one of them was stupid and uneducated, yet still they volunteered and went to great lengths for a suicide mission. That's how you have to imagine it in Iraq.

We are not talking about illiterate peasants like the Taleban in Afghanistan, who were led by Pakistani officers as cannon fodder to stabilise the country at any price.

And we aren't talking about a Palestinesque situation, like when Arafat started the 2nd Intifada to bomb Israel to withdrawal. The Palestinians used the suicide bombers as soldiers and the blasts as a tool for a political goal - Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian land. Even Arafat didn't kill Israelis just for the fun of it, or because he was evil or out of hate. He had a clear goal that he ruthlessly pursued.

In an insurgency the actors may well act out of free will without anyone masterminding them. They may have a common enemy, not a common cause.

Ironically, now that Saddam is gone the only thing that keeps Iraq from falling apart seems to be the US as the enemy uniting the Iraqis against them. The day the US withdraw, Iraqis will be at their own throats, be it to settle old scores or to fight for political influence.

That seems especially plausible in Iraq with its dozens and dozens of independent groups.

What I see in Iraq is chaos. One group may shoot at US troops because they are nationalsists and want them out, the next does the same thing because they see them as infidels on holy islamic soil, the third sees chaos as a desirable state of affairs for business, the fourth is just for hire, the fifth avenges familiy members killed by the US in Iraq, another one wants Saddam back, the next one wants another Khomeini in Iraq - and so forth.

[ January 11, 2005, 08:05: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Re: the verdict and American military justice - WTF? If it weren't for the injustices involved in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, and the side-splittingly ludicrous defences being brought up by the defence for Charles Graner, I'd be looking for the hidden camera right now.

Mamdouh Habib's release from Guantanamo Bay was announced today. He has been there for three years, without charge, and has virtually no recourse for litigation except defamation, courtesy of the "generous" rewriting of the rules of engagement and treatment of prisoners. The guy has been found guilty of nothing, yet has spent three years in detention, without contact with his familiy, without charges or any solid evidence of wrongdoing. A marine Sergeant 1st Class who commits an act of manslaughter gets demoted and cops six months in military custody. As sympathetic as I am to the situation of soldiers in Iraq (as previously discussed in the "Murderer Marine" thread), this is manslaughter at best, and without a shred of justification. In Australia, that would be tried as "an unlawful and dangerous act of manslaughter", which is essentially wilful or reckless manslaughter resulting from a separate act of lawlessness (like robbery, or forcing people into a river at gunpoint).

But, getting back on-topic...

Couldn't agree more, Ragusa. And I think that's why there are so many "spot fires", so to speak. There is a visible, present and identifiable enemy for many of these groups, and its alien/imperialist/infidel/<insert negative adjective here> nature is what makes it such an easy target to mobilise support against, or at the very least, to garner tacit support for actions against it. I don't think it's as black and white as one might imagine, however.

What would you do if your country was invaded and its sovereignty extinguished? If I wasn't summarily executed, I sure as hell wouldn't take it lying down. I might not become an active insurgent, but I wouldn't exactly condemn them either. I think that under the right circumstances, anyone could become an insurgent. All you need is a cause and a ruling body or agency to fight against.

 

I am not sure if this is true but I read somewhere that over 60% (maybe more) supported the invasian but its now less than 10% and I can see why when you look at the unjustice of certain situations.

It all could have worked out differently...

 

Sorry I meant the percentage of Iraqi's supporting the war.

Bush should think himself lucky getting all that (continued) support dispite what he has 'achieved'. Other leaders have lost popularity/trust for lesser deeds.

 

What's amazing is not that the lies work--they usually do if you repeat them often and convincingly--but that the failures--obvious and open and numerous--have no effect. Bush must believe by now that he is truly charmed, and God knows where that will take us. Think hubris.

[ January 15, 2005, 05:32: Message edited by: Cernak ]