• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

And the Spooks DID try to Tell Bush and His Advisors . . .

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,054
0
71
But would they Listen ? No - they didn't want to hear that

El Clipo - Grande ! (Washington Post)

U.S. intelligence agencies warned Bush administration policymakers before the war in Iraq that there would be significant armed opposition to a U.S.-led occupation, according to administration and congressional sources familiar with the reports.

Although general in nature, the sources said, the intelligence agencies' concerns about the degree of resistance U.S. forces would encounter have proved broadly accurate in the months since the ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his inner circle.

Among the threats outlined in the intelligence agencies' reporting was that "Iraqis probably would resort to obstruction, resistance and armed opposition if they perceived attempts to keep them dependent on the U.S. and the West," one senior congressional aide said. The general tenor of the reports, according to a senior administration official familiar with the intelligence, was that the postwar period would be more "problematic" than the war to overthrow Hussein.

As U.S. military casualties mount and resistance forces wage a campaign of targeted bombings in Iraq, some administration officials have begun to fault the CIA and other intelligence agencies for being overly optimistic and failing to anticipate such widespread and sustained opposition to a U.S. occupation. But several administration and congressional sources interviewed for this article said the opposite occurred. They said senior policymakers at the White House, Pentagon and elsewhere received classified analyses before the war warning about the dangers of the postwar period.

"Intelligence reports told them at some length about possibilities for unpleasantness," said a senior administration official, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity. "The reports were written, but we don't know if they were read."

In the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, senior Pentagon officials were privately optimistic about postwar Iraq, and their assessment shaped calculations about the size of the occupation force that would be required and how long it would have to be there, as well as the overall cost of the U.S. management of Iraq after the fall of the Hussein government.

The more pessimistic view generally remained submerged, but the controversy did occasionally break into the open, most notably when then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki told Congress in February that several hundred thousand occupation troops would be needed. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz rejected his estimate at the time as "wildly off the mark."

Although the Pentagon has said it has no plans to increase the number of U.S. forces in Iraq -- now nearly 130,000 -- the Bush administration has launched a new diplomatic campaign to win foreign pledges of more troops to help stabilize the country.

Before the war, the CIA passed on intelligence that some members of Hussein's Republican Guard military units and his Baathist Party had plans to carry on resistance after the war, according to one senior intelligence official. "They had been given instructions should the regime fall," the official said. U.S. military and civilian leaders in Iraq have said they believe the daily attacks against U.S. forces are being carried out by Hussein loyalists.

CIA analysts last summer also expressed concerns that the "chaos after war would turn [Iraq] into a laboratory for terrorists," according to another former intelligence analyst. President Bush picked up on this theme in his nationally televised speech Sunday night, saying Iraq is attracting international terrorists and is now the "central front" in the war on terrorism.

There is not universal agreement about the clarity of the prewar intelligence that was forwarded by the CIA and its counterpart agencies at the Pentagon and State Department. Some administration officials said the intelligence was murkier than others now depict it.

"The possibility there would be armed opposition was based on inductive reasoning," one administration official said of reports from the Defense Intelligence Agency. "The analysts were guessing." Another congressional aide said the intelligence reports he had seen "were not very specific and had a range of outcomes and caveats depending on how the war would go."

However, the prevailing view within intelligence agencies, including the DIA, was that there would be resistance. Officials said this explained the thinking behind Shinseki's congressional testimony earlier this year. A DIA memo last fall said postwar Iraq would be "highly complex and driven by political and religious factions," according to one former Pentagon analyst. "They [Defense Intelligence Agency analysts] said it would be hard to keep the lid on and to keep the various areas of the country from falling apart."

Former Army secretary Thomas E. White said that during discussions he had in the Pentagon before the war, he was told "the situation once the war was over would be contentious." Although White said he did not see intelligence on postwar Iraq first hand, it was discussed in meetings with Shinseki, who said there were reports that "you could expect a major influx of Islamic fighters."

It was for those reasons, White said in a telephone interview, that Shinseki saw the need "to size the postwar force bigger than the wartime force."

Speaking of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, White said, "Their view of the intelligence was much different. Their notion of it was resistance would run away as the few remaining Saddam loyalists were hunted down."

White said on NBC's "Today" show Thursday that the postwar planning assumptions approved by senior Pentagon civilians were based on U.S. troops being "greeted in the streets by a euphoric public, glad of being rid of Saddam Hussein, and consequently we could very rapidly draw down the force structure."

White, who resigned his Army post in April, has published a new book sharply critical of the administration's Iraq policy.

Pentagon spokesmen did not immediately reply to telephone questions about the prewar intelligence.

A White House official said the administration is not surprised by the level of resistance U.S. forces are encountering. "It does not come as a surprise that some of the bitter fanatics continue to fight against a foregone conclusion and that foreign terrorists would seek to hold back progress made in Iraq over the last five months," the official said.

Several senior policymakers, however, have said recently that they were not totally prepared for what has occurred. On Sunday, for example, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was asked on CNN's "Late Edition" if there could have been better planning for the postwar period. She responded, "Obviously, there were things that were not foreseen. They have now -- [and] are now being addressed."

Before the war, intelligence analysts also questioned whether the administration would be able to achieve its goal of rapidly introducing democracy in Iraq, according to administration and congressional officials. Intelligence agencies reported that "any chance of achieving democracy was predicated on long-term active U.S. and Western military, political and economic involvement with the country," one administration official said.

On Feb. 26, the day Bush said in a speech that bringing democracy to Iraq would help democratize other Arab countries, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research completed a classified analysis that dismissed the idea.

The State Department analysis reportedly stated that "liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve" in Iraq and that "electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements."
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
What a surprise. They knew they were screwing up and did it anyway.

Now we get to pay for their mistake.

Is it still a mistake if they knew it wouldn't work?
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
What a surprise. They knew they were screwing up and did it anyway.

Now we get to pay for their mistake.

Is it still a mistake if they knew it wouldn't work?
What mistake has been made? Removing an evil dictator in record time? Giving freedom to 24,000,000 Iraqis?
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,709
5
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: BOBDN
What a surprise. They knew they were screwing up and did it anyway.

Now we get to pay for their mistake.

Is it still a mistake if they knew it wouldn't work?
What mistake has been made? Removing an evil dictator in record time? Giving freedom to 24,000,000 Iraqis?
Just a transfer of control from the Saddam regime to the Bush regime. And where do you see "fredom to 24 mil Iraqis" ? Are they electing their leaders in the government or is Rumsfeld doing some hand picking?
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: BOBDN
What a surprise. They knew they were screwing up and did it anyway.

Now we get to pay for their mistake.

Is it still a mistake if they knew it wouldn't work?
What mistake has been made? Removing an evil dictator in record time? Giving freedom to 24,000,000 Iraqis?
Just a transfer of control from the Saddam regime to the Bush regime. And where do you see "fredom to 24 mil Iraqis" ? Are they electing their leaders in the government or is Rumsfeld doing some hand picking?
It's been less than six months. It takes a bit longer than that to set up a democracy. Come back in five years, and if this is going on, then we have a problem.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: BOBDN
What a surprise. They knew they were screwing up and did it anyway.

Now we get to pay for their mistake.

Is it still a mistake if they knew it wouldn't work?
What mistake has been made? Removing an evil dictator in record time? Giving freedom to 24,000,000 Iraqis?
Just a transfer of control from the Saddam regime to the Bush regime. And where do you see "fredom to 24 mil Iraqis" ? Are they electing their leaders in the government or is Rumsfeld doing some hand picking?
It's been less than six months. It takes a bit longer than that to set up a democracy. Come back in five years, and if this is going on, then we have a problem.
so the plan was all along for the army to stay with massive numbers in Iraq for 5 years?

 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
0
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: BOBDN
What a surprise. They knew they were screwing up and did it anyway.

Now we get to pay for their mistake.

Is it still a mistake if they knew it wouldn't work?
What mistake has been made? Removing an evil dictator in record time? Giving freedom to 24,000,000 Iraqis?
Just a transfer of control from the Saddam regime to the Bush regime. And where do you see "fredom to 24 mil Iraqis" ? Are they electing their leaders in the government or is Rumsfeld doing some hand picking?
It's been less than six months. It takes a bit longer than that to set up a democracy. Come back in five years, and if this is going on, then we have a problem.
There won't be a real democracy in Iraq. Anyone they elect will have to be vetted and approved by the US. You think if they approve a pro Iran Shiite cleric, we'll just let it stand? Or how about a Baathist? Or a Wahabbist?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
I don't believe there will ever be true democracy in Iraq. Probably something more along the lines of a benign autocracy. But not to get too far OT -- it seems that the administration would HAVE to expect significant armed opposition in Iraq. I mean, just look at the recent history of Afghanistan. That should have given them a good idea (although on a smaller scale) of what to expect. It's just more of the same "Rummy Rules" thinking that keeps getting us in trouble.
 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,940
10
81
At best, Iraq will be another Israel--eternally tormented and bullied for being the US's puppet.

At worst, with the way it was handled by the incompentant Bush Regime, it will be the US's worst nightmare.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,849
0
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113

It's been less than six months. It takes a bit longer than that to set up a democracy. Come back in five years, and if this is going on, then we have a problem.
And who's to say in 10 years after Americans are long gone, there won't be another Saddam Hussien that oppress Iraqi people? Even worst, maybe this time it will be a Islamic fundamentalist Shiite government just like Iran that really harbors terrorist and builds WMD.
 

friedpie

Senior member
Oct 1, 2002
703
0
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: BOBDN
What a surprise. They knew they were screwing up and did it anyway.

Now we get to pay for their mistake.

Is it still a mistake if they knew it wouldn't work?
What mistake has been made? Removing an evil dictator in record time? Giving freedom to 24,000,000 Iraqis?
Ditto
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: daniel1113

It's been less than six months. It takes a bit longer than that to set up a democracy. Come back in five years, and if this is going on, then we have a problem.
And who's to say in 10 years after Americans are long gone, there won't be another Saddam Hussien that oppress Iraqi people? Even worst, maybe this time it will be a Islamic fundamentalist Shiite government just like Iran that really harbors terrorist and builds WMD.
I doubt we will completely gone in less than 10 years.
 

friedpie

Senior member
Oct 1, 2002
703
0
0
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: daniel1113

It's been less than six months. It takes a bit longer than that to set up a democracy. Come back in five years, and if this is going on, then we have a problem.
And who's to say in 10 years after Americans are long gone, there won't be another Saddam Hussien that oppress Iraqi people? Even worst, maybe this time it will be a Islamic fundamentalist Shiite government just like Iran that really harbors terrorist and builds WMD.
I love all you naysayers and your rosey outlook on things. You can't plan on anything if you expect to fail. Get real.






 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
17,848
24
81
"The possibility there would be armed opposition was based on inductive reasoning," one administration official said of reports from the Defense Intelligence Agency. "The analysts were guessing." Another congressional aide said the intelligence reports he had seen "were not very specific and had a range of outcomes and caveats depending on how the war would go."

However, the prevailing view within intelligence agencies, including the DIA, was that there would be resistance.
False dichotomy.

I love how the media portrays it as a question of 'resistance yes' and 'resistance no'. The question is one of degree. Would there be 'light', 'moderate', or 'heavy' post-War resistance, and what defines 'light', 'moderate', or 'heavy' resistance; 5 attacks on US forces, 10 attacks on US forces, 15 attacks on US forces, daily?

Clearly the Pentagon planned for resistance, perhaps they did underestimated the resistance they would see, but not a catastrophic underestimation. The following constitutes a logical fallacy:
Premise: There are on-going militant attacks against US forces;

Premise: US forces could silence armed opposition if they had the resources and man-power;

Therefore: the Pentagon obviously failed to plan for militant resistance.
Wrong. Premise #2 is false. We would see continued militant attacks even if there were 200,000 more troops in Iraq.

Again, the issue is degree. Would there be fewer attacks? Perhaps, likely, yes. Would there be zero attacks? No.

Would Bush haters still be charging the Bush Administration and the Pentagon with incompetent planning had there been 200,000 more troops and fewer attacks? Most definitely.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: tcsenter
"The possibility there would be armed opposition was based on inductive reasoning," one administration official said of reports from the Defense Intelligence Agency. "The analysts were guessing." Another congressional aide said the intelligence reports he had seen "were not very specific and had a range of outcomes and caveats depending on how the war would go."

However, the prevailing view within intelligence agencies, including the DIA, was that there would be resistance.
False dichotomy.

I love how the media portrays it as a question of 'resistance yes' and 'resistance no'. The question is one of degree. Would there be 'light', 'moderate', or 'heavy' post-War resistance, and what defines 'light', 'moderate', or 'heavy' resistance; 5 attacks on US forces, 10 attacks on US forces, 15 attacks on US forces, daily?

Clearly the Pentagon planned for resistance, perhaps they did underestimated the resistance they would see, but not a catastrophic underestimation. The following constitutes a logical fallacy:
Premise: There are on-going militant attacks against US forces;

Premise: US forces could silence armed opposition if they had the resources and man-power;

Therefore: the Pentagon obviously failed to plan for militant resistance.
Wrong. Premise #2 is false. We would see continued militant attacks even if there were 200,000 more troops in Iraq.

Again, the issue is degree. Would there be fewer attacks? Perhaps, likely, yes. Would there be zero attacks? No.

Would Bush haters still be charging the Bush Administration and the Pentagon with incompetent planning had there been 200,000 more troops and fewer attacks? Most definitely.
I think you just reinforced the whole point of this thread. Of course there was heavy resistance. When you invade and occupy another country, especially a country with a long history of resisting occupation, they're going to fight back. Duh. Who could have predicted that? (Aside from pretty much everyone except the Bush administration, I mean.)

Just imagine what would happen to any country foolish enough to try to invade the U.S. Our enlisted military forces would be the least of their worries. They'd be attacked by anyone who could swing a garden tool.

The invasion was reckless and unwarranted. While the actual attack (step 1) may have been well-planned, the complete lack of planning for steps 2-n means that overall, the plan was a failure.
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
I think you just reinforced the whole point of this thread. Of course there was heavy resistance. When you invade and occupy another country, especially a country with a long history of resisting occupation, they're going to fight back. Duh. Who could have predicted that? (Aside from pretty much everyone except the Bush administration, I mean.)
iraq has 'a long history of resisting occupation' ? iraq was ruled by the ba'ath for past 40 years. before them, they had a monarch. while
you may regard him as a puppet, no one ever regarded the king and his entourage as an occupying force.

The invasion was reckless and unwarranted. While the actual attack (step 1) may have been well-planned, the complete lack of
planning for steps 2-n means that overall, the plan was a failure.
saddam is history. his boys are now being digested by wormsk. the ba'ath party is history. the arab league has even offered a seat to the iraqi
governing council. the most murderous totalitarian regime of the last 25 years will never resurface again. and this amounts to failure ? pathetic.

i could imagine the continued hand-holding the u.n. would've employed to no fruitless end would have ensured the ba'ath party would exist under
the control of the loving hussein hand for at least another 40 or so years. that, ofcourse, would have amounted to a success.




 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,824
0
76
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: BOBDN
What a surprise. They knew they were screwing up and did it anyway.

Now we get to pay for their mistake.

Is it still a mistake if they knew it wouldn't work?
What mistake has been made? Removing an evil dictator in record time? Giving freedom to 24,000,000 Iraqis?
So you call being invaded and occupied by a foreign country freedom now? Or are you claiming future promises of eventual freedom are the same as freedom? Anyway you slice it your claim of "freedom" is a pipedream at the moment.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: syzygy
I think you just reinforced the whole point of this thread. Of course there was heavy resistance. When you invade and occupy another country, especially a country with a long history of resisting occupation, they're going to fight back. Duh. Who could have predicted that? (Aside from pretty much everyone except the Bush administration, I mean.)
iraq has 'a long history of resisting occupation' ? iraq was ruled by the ba'ath for past 40 years. before them, they had a monarch. while
you may regard him as a puppet, no one ever regarded the king and his entourage as an occupying force.
LOL. You kids think anything before Vietnam is ancient history. Think centuries, not decades.


The invasion was reckless and unwarranted. While the actual attack (step 1) may have been well-planned, the complete lack of
planning for steps 2-n means that overall, the plan was a failure.
saddam is history. his boys are now being digested by wormsk. the ba'ath party is history. the arab league has even offered a seat to the iraqi
governing council. the most murderous totalitarian regime of the last 25 years will never resurface again. and this amounts to failure ? pathetic.

i could imagine the continued hand-holding the u.n. would've employed to no fruitless end would have ensured the ba'ath party would exist under
the control of the loving hussein hand for at least another 40 or so years. that, ofcourse, would have amounted to a success.
Sorry, Sparky, you're missing the point of the discussion. Yes, we kicked his butt. Now what? As predicited, many Iraqis aren't too happy about being occupied by a bunch of infidels. Meanwhile, we're milling around with our thumbs up our butts wondering what to do next. We're too slow to restore services, too slow to restore order, too slow to implement self-rule, and we can't protect ourselves or the Iraqis from regular guerilla attacks.

Sure, our initial charge was successful, but that was the easy part. We didn't plan for restoring the country and getting out. That's a failure.



 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
17,848
24
81
I think you just reinforced the whole point of this thread. Of course there was heavy resistance. When you invade and occupy another country, especially a country with a long history of resisting occupation, they're going to fight back. Duh. Who could have predicted that? (Aside from pretty much everyone except the Bush administration, I mean.)
Getting back to a point you clearly neglected to address for obvious reasons, what defines "heavy" resistance? You have to quantify it in order to make force projections. Let me guess, "The resistance we are seeing right now is heavy resistance." Its nice being a chattery member of the All Star Armchair Critic Team, eh?

Its easy to say there would be "heavy" resistance in a vacuum with no relative point of reference. 'Heavy' compared with what? Are you sure, in your extensive combat command experience, that the resistance being engaged in Iraq is "heavy" by all relative standards?
Just imagine what would happen to any country foolish enough to try to invade the U.S. Our enlisted military forces would be the least of their worries. They'd be attacked by anyone who could swing a garden tool.
Right, which isn't happening in Iraq. Far from it, by all accounts. I'm glad you chose that as your "relative standard".

The resistance is from militant groups who were pretty much militant before the US invasion; Baathists, Fedayeen militia remnants, Islamic fundamentalists, and increasingly from foreign fighters. A small percentage of hard core extremists type folks, which hardly reflects the other 99.5% of Iraq's 25 million people.

1% of 25 million is 250,000. If there were 250,000 armed militants - two for every US soldier in Iraq - running around Iraq hell-bent on 'driving the Infidel occupation forces out', there would be a helluva lot more mayhem and violence than there is. At best, we're talking 15,000~25,000 armed militants in the whole of Iraq.

It doesn't take 100 armed militants to stuff 20lbs of improvised munitions and high explosives into a plastic bag, plant it on a roadside, detonate the explosives remotely or using a timer to slow or stop a US convoy, then fire a few RPG and a few hundred AK47 rounds on their position, then run away. Hell I could do that myself with the assistance of a few half-wits who can follow instructions.
The invasion was reckless and unwarranted. While the actual attack (step 1) may have been well-planned, the complete lack of planning for steps 2-n means that overall, the plan was a failure.
Ah, I believe your statement above is what actually 'reinforces the premise of this whole thread', and ties-in nicely with my earlier conclusion:
Would Bush haters still be charging the Bush Administration and the Pentagon with incompetent planning had there been 200,000 more troops and fewer attacks? Most definitely.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
1
0
SO.. if your family members were murdered by the US Military when they came to Iraq to secure American National Interests (oil) WHAT WOULD YOU DO ABOUT IT?

How many innocent Iraqi civilians were murdered by the US invasion and Occupation?
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,824
0
76
Originally posted by: tcsenter


........................................
Wow, you have some real insider information on how many are resisting, what groups they are with, what % has no interest in resisting, how the resistors reflect on the feelings and emotions of the rest of the country, and it even seems you might have some ideas on how they could put up a better resistance.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
saddam is history. his boys are now being digested by wormsk. the ba'ath party is history. the arab league has even offered a seat to the iraqi
governing council. the most murderous totalitarian regime of the last 25 years will never resurface again. and this amounts to failure ? pathetic.
Corrections . . . Saddam is public enemy #1 (he replaced Osama b/c we couldn't catch him either). His demon seed is certainly dead but not forgotten. The Ba'ath Party isn't history b/c Rummy himself said they were funding many of the attacks on US forces (he said that today on the NewsHour). The Arab League did not offer a seat to the Council. The 'appointed council' sent a letter to the Arab League asking for recognition and letting them know that the Iraqi Governing Council was sending a representative. The most murderous totalitarian regime of the last 25 years . . . probably somewhere between the Sudan and the Horn. You may want to check the tally in Bosnia/Kosovo as well but I'm sure one of the African POS has Milosevic beat. Curiously your 25 year horizon would put us back to 1978 . . . last time I checked the US was on pretty good terms with Saddam in the early 80s . . . we even gave him $200M in one year (1983) . . . and sent an envoy . . . what was that guy's name . . . it escapes me . . . I think it starts with an R . . . and sorta rhymes with dumbbell.

i could imagine the continued hand-holding the u.n. would've employed to no fruitless end would have ensured the ba'ath party would exist under the control of the loving hussein hand for at least another 40 or so years. that, ofcourse, would have amounted to a success.
You can imagine now try reality. The US was unprepared for the time after major combat. If it were not for the extra rations provided by POS Saddam's regime many more people would have faced starvation while the US 'secured' the oil ministry . . . and scarcely little else. Multiple sources provided intelligence implying resistance would be prolonged and that infrastructure within Iraq was crumbling . . . yet the Bushies sold a bill of goods about a speedy military victory (I guess they get that one depending on what 'victory' means) and a sea of oil that would be easily tapped to pay for the reconstruction.

The US went to the UN to solidify its hold on the country by getting a resolution granting full occupying powers to the US . . . you can call it Coalition Forces but the North Atlantic is chillier than normal this time of year and I doubt the Pols are running anything. The problem of course is that we are also responsible for Iraq as the Occupying Power. So now the tune being sung by Rummy and his minions is that its Saddam's fault for leaving the country in such crappy shape and the Iraqis responsibility to provide security . . . whatever happened to the "untidiness" of democracy?

Oh yeah and WMD has gone from being permanent prologue and/or epilogue of Bush speeches to being a Where's Waldo. Our intelligence was "damn good", "irrefutable", "substantiated by multiple sources" . . . now the administration's favorite term is "imperfect."
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
17,848
24
81
Wow, you have some real insider information on how many are resisting, what groups they are with, what % has no interest in resisting, how the resistors reflect on the feelings and emotions of the rest of the country, and it even seems you might have some ideas on how they could put up a better resistance.
Not really insider information, if you pay attention to military reports, as well as military analysts working for any number of think tanks, or writers for various publications such as Jane's Defence Weekly.

If there were one-half of one percent of 25 million people actively engaging US forces in guerilla type attacks, there would be a hell of a lot more than 12~15 seperate attacks on US forces every day. Its called simple logic and reasoning: try it! You might even like it. ;)

1/2 percent of 25 million is 125,000. For the sake of argument, we will presume these militant resisters are 'neatly' organized into 'working cells' of 100 members: for a total of 1250 working cells.

The vast majority of 'attacks' against US forces are pesky harassments such as several fighters popping up from behind some obstruction, firing RPGs and small arms at vehicles, planting bottles and cans filled with explosives at roadside, or dropping small explosives from over-passes. These kinds of operations sure as hell don't require 100 people to pull-off. 10, yes. 100, no.

But we'll assume these are the most incompetent and inefficient armed resisters in the history of armed resistance, and that it requires 100 people to execute attacks every other backwards population on the planet could manage with 10.

Assuming one attack staged by each cell per week, as tough as it is to fill a can with explosives and toss off a bridge (that should only require a few hours), that would mean at least 170 attacks per day, more than 10x the number experienced by US forces in all of Iraq per day. Hell, let's assume these poor dumb bastards can't even manage but one attack per month = 40 attacks per day.

Grossly and ridiculously underestimating the competence and capabilities of 125,000 armed resisters still doesn't get us anywhere near 15 attacks per day.

If there were 125,000 (1/2 percent) militant armed resisters in Iraq, nearly the same number for total US forces in Iraq, we would have been run straight the hell out of there a couple months ago.

25,000 militant resisters - 1 out of every 1000 Iraqis - is an absolute worst-case scenario. And that presumes resistance is 100% home-grown, which we know isn't the case. So now, given foreign fighters, even fewer than 1 out of every 1000 Iraqis.

Any way you want to slice it, to suggest that anything more than a miniscule percentage of Iraqis are hostile enough to US intervention that they are taking up arms in resistence is totally baseless and completely disintegrates under scrutiny.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY