Insurgent attacks shifting...

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-02-14 12:18pm

Iraqi insurgents and foreign fighters have shifted their focus over the past couple of months from Coalition forces to the new Iraqi infrastructure -- specifically the new Iraqi police. The practice of attacking US forces has become a rather unhealthy adventure for the insurgents, as US forces no longer drive through ambushes as they once did, but rather they attack into ambushes in order to hunt down and kill all the attackers. The new aim of the insurgents seems to be to discredit Coalition forces by demonstrating their inability to protect the emerging infrastructure. Moreover, they hope to demonstrate that working with Coalition forces is a deadly gambit. Thus we now see attacks like this one. What is unclear is what the composition insurgent forces is -- Iraqi or foreign nationals. Foreign nationals are generally more inclined to attack US forces, as they've been driven by jihad through what they've seen in their own national mass media, while the insurgents who strike at the infrastructure are more likely to be Iraqi -- perhaps from the former regime (who certainly have little to nothing to gain by seeing the current government succeed).

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2004-02-14 12:41pm

Someone is thinking this through...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-14 01:11pm

The attacks seem to be shifting more towards civilians, also; there have been some particularly vicious attacks within the last week.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-02-14 02:10pm

You know what Iraq needs? Someone local to start a massive campaign for proper government and peace. Get the Iraqi people to want to help in rebuilding their nation into something great. If that happens, you won't be able to be a working terrorist organization, because people will repair the damage real quick.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-14 02:38pm

kojikun wrote:You know what Iraq needs? Someone local to start a massive campaign for proper government and peace. Get the Iraqi people to want to help in rebuilding their nation into something great. If that happens, you won't be able to be a working terrorist organization, because people will repair the damage real quick.

Just the other day dozens of people lining up to join the Iraqi security forces were killed in a suicide bombing attack.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-02-14 02:51pm

Could this be part of their plan to start a civil war?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-02-14 02:59pm

Joe wrote:
kojikun wrote:You know what Iraq needs? Someone local to start a massive campaign for proper government and peace. Get the Iraqi people to want to help in rebuilding their nation into something great. If that happens, you won't be able to be a working terrorist organization, because people will repair the damage real quick.
Just the other day dozens of people lining up to join the Iraqi security forces were killed in a suicide bombing attack.

Bastards.

You think with shit like that they wouldn't have popular support.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2004-02-14 03:12pm

kojikun wrote:You know what Iraq needs? Someone local to start a massive campaign for proper government and peace. Get the Iraqi people to want to help in rebuilding their nation into something great. If that happens, you won't be able to be a working terrorist organization, because people will repair the damage real quick.

Luckily that have been happening almost since the fall of Saddam, but the media won't mentioned it hardly at all. Hence the part of the reason for insurgents to attack their own people.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-02-14 04:04pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Bastards.

You think with shit like that they wouldn't have popular support.

There goal, it appears is not to get public support, but rather to scare people out of giving the Coalition public support. It's a doomed plan, but it's the mindset of the insurgents.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-14 04:09pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Joe wrote:
kojikun wrote:You know what Iraq needs? Someone local to start a massive campaign for proper government and peace. Get the Iraqi people to want to help in rebuilding their nation into something great. If that happens, you won't be able to be a working terrorist organization, because people will repair the damage real quick.
Just the other day dozens of people lining up to join the Iraqi security forces were killed in a suicide bombing attack.
Bastards.

You think with shit like that they wouldn't have popular support.

Well, they don't really have popular support.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2004-02-14 05:01pm

Gil Hamilton wrote: There goal, it appears is not to get public support, but rather to scare people out of giving the Coalition public support. It's a doomed plan, but it's the mindset of the insurgents.

How is it a doomed plan? The Coalition forces continued inability to be present everywhere and protect everywhere is a threat that any insurgents can use to deny the Coalition support.

Without the local infrastructure and support of the populace, the new Iraqi government can't possibly carry out any support.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-02-14 10:22pm

Joe wrote:
Well, they don't really have popular support.

They have popular support among the more militant Sunnis, and popular 'apathy' among the others. The Shi'ites don't like the Sunnis, but then again, they're not fans of the US either. It's all very interesting if you ask me.

Still, attacks on US forces continue- IED attacks aren't going to let up anytime soon, and I'm sure MANPADS and RPG attacks on helicopters and aircraft are still going on. Mortar attacks are also still a cheap and relatively safe way to hit US forces (and the more practice they get, the more accurate they'll become ...)

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-02-15 12:02am

Winning of hearts and minds of the Iraqi populace is key. Our Information Operations (IO) must be on the ball, placing the blame squarely on where it belongs -- the insurgents and foreign fighters, while simultaneously providing support to those who suffer at the hands of insurgent strikes. Once the populace realizes the insurgents are to blame for their woes, they'll be less likely to lend aid and comfort to the enemy and less likely to "look the other way." Moreover, Coalition forces must maximize human intelligence (HUMINT) to sniff out those who lead, fund, and supply the enemy -- follow the money. Find and destroy enemy safehouses and caches. Find and neutralize funding sources and key enemy leaders.

Doubtless, enemy strikes on Coalition forces will continue, but the enemy has found a softer (less deadly) target in the Iraqi police forces and infrastructure. Coalition tactics have become much more agressive, attacking into ambushes and destroying the enemy to the last man. The downfall is that innocent civilians die too, and that can serve to play into the hands of the insurgents.

It's a dangerous and dirty business, but it is possible to defeat the insurgents. It requires something to which Americans (and most Westerners) are not accustomed -- patience and longsuffering.

The enemy is patient.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-02-15 12:22am

jegs2 wrote:Winning of hearts and minds of the Iraqi populace is key. Our Information Operations (IO) must be on the ball, placing the blame squarely on where it belongs -- the insurgents and foreign fighters, while simultaneously providing support to those who suffer at the hands of insurgent strikes. Once the populace realizes the insurgents are to blame for their woes, they'll be less likely to lend aid and comfort to the enemy and less likely to "look the other way." Moreover, Coalition forces must maximize human intelligence (HUMINT) to sniff out those who lead, fund, and supply the enemy -- follow the money. Find and destroy enemy safehouses and caches. Find and neutralize funding sources and key enemy leaders.

Doubtless, enemy strikes on Coalition forces will continue, but the enemy has found a softer (less deadly) target in the Iraqi police forces and infrastructure. Coalition tactics have become much more agressive, attacking into ambushes and destroying the enemy to the last man. The downfall is that innocent civilians die too, and that can serve to play into the hands of the insurgents.

It's a dangerous and dirty business, but it is possible to defeat the insurgents. It requires something to which Americans (and most Westerners) are not accustomed -- patience and longsuffering.

The enemy is patient.

Well thats nice, just dont forget that they will still be there long after coalition troops leave, which is something the British forgot when they were there. They, Iraqis, will have the government they want and there is virtually nothing America can do about that.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2004-02-15 12:27am

I remember when some of my redneck neighbors actually thought that capturing Saddam would stop these attacks. Funny how simpletons think...

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-02-15 02:48am

Superman wrote:I remember when some of my redneck neighbors actually thought that capturing Saddam would stop these attacks. Funny how simpletons think...

Up until he was caught, it was theorized that it was possible he was still masterminding some of the attacks. With this theory in mind, it's not entirely unreasonable to think that his capture might at least slow down the attacks.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-02-15 02:52am

Stuart Mackey wrote:Well thats nice, just dont forget that they will still be there long after coalition troops leave, which is something the British forgot when they were there. They, Iraqis, will have the government they want and there is virtually nothing America can do about that.

On that note, it is my belief that these United States will maintain a garrison in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Rarely has the United States conquered a nation and then completely pulled out, and Iraq will be strategically important for some time. One could argue that the British should never have pulled out of Iraq in the first place...

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-02-15 02:57am

jegs2 wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:Well thats nice, just dont forget that they will still be there long after coalition troops leave, which is something the British forgot when they were there. They, Iraqis, will have the government they want and there is virtually nothing America can do about that.
On that note, it is my belief that these United States will maintain a garrison in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Rarely has the United States conquered a nation and then completely pulled out, and Iraq will be strategically important for some time. One could argue that the British should never have pulled out of Iraq in the first place...

Then the violence will continue so long as you hold toops there. You will be in the same situation that the Brits were there and in Palastine.

The British could not politically and economically and millitarily they simply could not goven the place.Withdrawl from east of Suez was effectivly surrender of Empire.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-02-15 03:00am

jegs2 wrote: On that note, it is my belief that these United States will maintain a garrison in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Rarely has the United States conquered a nation and then completely pulled out, and Iraq will be strategically important for some time. One could argue that the British should never have pulled out of Iraq in the first place...

Well, they didn't have much of a choice- the Iraqis are quite proud of what they did to the British way back when, IIRC.

The US will definitely keep permanent bases in Iraq (funnily enough, Rumsfeld denied this last year, lol); but any use of the forces in these bases to 'influence' Iraqi politics once it's firmly established will not go down well with anyone in the country or the region.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-02-15 03:20am

Lazy Raptor wrote:Could this be part of their plan to start a civil war?

Maybe. According to CNN Al-Queda is interested in starting a civil war in Iraq.