Friday, June 25, 2004
Death in Iraq
Yesterday was one of the worst days of the war for the Iraqis: 100 killed and 300 wounded according to reports. Five areas were hit in the Sunni triangle and Mosul, with the objective apparently being the killing of police, destroying police stations, demonstrating a kind of invincibility. One Times account included as an aside that this was believed to be the work of Sunnis and Shi'a together. However, I see little evidence yet of the latter. Rather the area impacted, the fact that Zarqawi and former Baathists are evidently involved makes this doubtful. Zarqawi famously sought to foment trouble between Shiites and Sunnis. Today there seem to have been no major attacks. But it is said that the insurgency threatens now to conquer at least parts of Baghdad.
The interpretations of the current efforts range from the idea this is the beginning of the end for the new government to the thought that it shows a last burst of energy before the end of the insurgency. Certainly if the insurgents expose themselves in the cities too early, they may regret it. It is significant that in the last couple of days American forces have again become active in Falluja, entering it briefly yesterday and again bombing a so-called "safe house" today. This suggests that the Falluja solution of letting the Iraqis do it has been abandoned, at least in the triangle. It is evident that the insurgents find attacking Iraqis much more productive and much less dangerous than attacking Americans directly. Of course, this forces the Americans to once again do the attacking in the cities, thereby further alienating Iraqis. It is also significant that the insurgents seem not to care how many Iraqis are killed in their war. This disregard for civilian life has happened in other similar insurgencies, as in Algeria, but the outcome does not necessarily favor the insurgents.
Clearly the insurgents are taking seriously the handing over of power to the interim government on July 1, no matter how circumscribed its power might be. If they have the men (they have the materiel), the insurgents will continue and broaden their attacks to demonstrate to all the fecklessness of Iraq's new security forces. This will then force American forces back into the field in a big way, once again proving to many Iraqis that we are merely an occupying force bent on killing Iraqis. In any event, massive insurgent attacks in the next few days are what the interim government and the American command claim they expect and are preparing for.
I am reminded of the Tet offensive in Vietnam. It was disastrous for the Viet Cong, essentially eliminating them as a fighting force (the subsequent several years war was strictly between North and American-aided South). However, the fact the Communists were able to come into all the cities and inflict massive casualties on South Vietnamese and American forces in the initial stages of their offensive, played in the United States as a Communist victory. On the basis of this interpretation, America made a decision to get out. The difference, of course, is that the Iraqi resistance does not have hundreds of thousands of troops waiting just across the border to come to their assistance. Yet the thinness of our forces in Iraq, and the way Americans feel now about this war, and with good reason, this fact may not be enough in the face of an impressive show of insurgent power — no matter what their losses.
Yesterday was one of the worst days of the war for the Iraqis: 100 killed and 300 wounded according to reports. Five areas were hit in the Sunni triangle and Mosul, with the objective apparently being the killing of police, destroying police stations, demonstrating a kind of invincibility. One Times account included as an aside that this was believed to be the work of Sunnis and Shi'a together. However, I see little evidence yet of the latter. Rather the area impacted, the fact that Zarqawi and former Baathists are evidently involved makes this doubtful. Zarqawi famously sought to foment trouble between Shiites and Sunnis. Today there seem to have been no major attacks. But it is said that the insurgency threatens now to conquer at least parts of Baghdad.
The interpretations of the current efforts range from the idea this is the beginning of the end for the new government to the thought that it shows a last burst of energy before the end of the insurgency. Certainly if the insurgents expose themselves in the cities too early, they may regret it. It is significant that in the last couple of days American forces have again become active in Falluja, entering it briefly yesterday and again bombing a so-called "safe house" today. This suggests that the Falluja solution of letting the Iraqis do it has been abandoned, at least in the triangle. It is evident that the insurgents find attacking Iraqis much more productive and much less dangerous than attacking Americans directly. Of course, this forces the Americans to once again do the attacking in the cities, thereby further alienating Iraqis. It is also significant that the insurgents seem not to care how many Iraqis are killed in their war. This disregard for civilian life has happened in other similar insurgencies, as in Algeria, but the outcome does not necessarily favor the insurgents.
Clearly the insurgents are taking seriously the handing over of power to the interim government on July 1, no matter how circumscribed its power might be. If they have the men (they have the materiel), the insurgents will continue and broaden their attacks to demonstrate to all the fecklessness of Iraq's new security forces. This will then force American forces back into the field in a big way, once again proving to many Iraqis that we are merely an occupying force bent on killing Iraqis. In any event, massive insurgent attacks in the next few days are what the interim government and the American command claim they expect and are preparing for.
I am reminded of the Tet offensive in Vietnam. It was disastrous for the Viet Cong, essentially eliminating them as a fighting force (the subsequent several years war was strictly between North and American-aided South). However, the fact the Communists were able to come into all the cities and inflict massive casualties on South Vietnamese and American forces in the initial stages of their offensive, played in the United States as a Communist victory. On the basis of this interpretation, America made a decision to get out. The difference, of course, is that the Iraqi resistance does not have hundreds of thousands of troops waiting just across the border to come to their assistance. Yet the thinness of our forces in Iraq, and the way Americans feel now about this war, and with good reason, this fact may not be enough in the face of an impressive show of insurgent power — no matter what their losses.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
