Question; The causes of insurgency within post war Iraq ?

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

I'm putting a presentation together for my unit on the causes of insurgency in post war Iraq and I'm interested in reading the informed and constructive opinions of the members here. Especially those with first hand experience.

However, before we start a few points,
1. I want cold hard facts, backed up by evidence.
2. I'm not interested in anti-Americanism and US bashing, or any other 'bashing' for that matter.
3. If you don't want to post it in 'public' then PM me.
4. I'd like as much detail as you can give, ie not ' US policy in the middle-east' etc, I'm after specifics. For instance at the beginning of the occupation troops from the 82nd Airborne opened fire on Iraqi protesters in Fallujah, an event which apparently had a major influence on how the Iraqis in that town reacted to the American presence from that point forwards. The fact it was a base for Saddam loyalists didn't help either.

Lets attempt to be clinical and keep emotions to a minimum.

Uninen, American Patriot, helex, Sean Ashi, etc if you can't contribute anything other than your usual diatribes then don't bother posting.

So, what are the causes of the post war insurgency in Iraq?

[Merik]

Political civilians in control of the ball game over there. During the post-war years in Japan and Germany both countries where under military control and were forced by gunpoint to accept the constitutions that we made for them.

Also, there were and are not enough troops for the post-war operations. If there were more we could definitly impose marshall law upon the country. Again this goes back to the WWII-post war years, MacArthur for the first 3 years I believe had marshall law upon Japan and it worked.

Not enough force to deal with the insurgents that are already and have been in country. The civilians in charge are too worried about the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis that they forget that even though Bush declared MAJOR combat ops over, the country is still a military area of operations. This as well goes back towards the WWII post years and the fact that civilians are in charge. You dont let your big ass killer dog loose unless you are prepared to let him finish the job. They are holding the chains back, case in point Fallujah. The civilian leadership would not allow the Marines to resolve the situtation by brute force, which is all these people understand, which was a huge mistake. The insurgents now have more courage to fight us because they think they have beaten the almighty United States of America.

Hope this helps.

[Uninen]

So, what are the causes of the post war insurgency in Iraq?
Their nation was invaded and occupied, and they dont like that, would you? ;) I can say i wouldnt.

And in the bottom it all comes down on that.

And with lots of people unhappy about the fate of their nation, they just needed little something (reason..) to trigger this chain of events.

Ineffect, the "war" never ended. Infact it never ended once it started in 1991.

[Pooga]

…and by whom was it started by in 1991?

[Uninen]

?and by whom was it started by in 1991?
Money problems caused by Kuwait and SA. (in aftermath of Iran-Iraq war.)
Also, Saddam had that US envoy that visited him before the invasion of Kuwait (during the crisis), and for some "funny reason" after that visit, Saddam was under impression that it was "OK".

But enough of that.

[Aussie E]

?and by whom was it started by in 1991?
Money problems caused by Kuwait and SA. (in aftermath of Iran-Iraq war.)
Also, Saddam had that US envoy that visited him before the invasion of Kuwait (during the crisis), and for some "funny reason" after that visit, Saddam was under impression that it was "OK".

But enough of that.

Money problems caused by Kuwait and SA. (in aftermath of Iran-Iraq war.)

Money problems caused by Saddam.

But enough of that.

[American Patriot]

Islamist ideology

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Thanks Merik.

As for the rest,

1. I want cold hard facts, backed up by evidence.
2. I'm not interested in anti-Americanism and US bashing, or any other 'bashing' for that matter.
3. If you don't want to post it in 'public' then PM me.
4. I'd like as much detail as you can give, ie not ' US policy in the middle-east' etc, I'm after specifics. For instance at the beginning of the occupation troops from the 82nd Airborne opened fire on Iraqi protesters in Fallujah, an event which apparently had a major influence on how the Iraqis in that town reacted to the American presence from that point forwards. The fact it was a base for Saddam loyalists didn't help either.


Generalisations like this,


Their nation was invaded and occupied, and they dont like that, would you?'.........'Money problems caused by Kuwait and SA.'.........'Islamist ideology'....

Aren't helpful.

I want specifics, as in did the decision to disband the Iraqi army add fuel to the insurgency?,
To what effect have outside agencies, be they countries, terrorist organisations, etc, influenced the insurgency.
What actions taken and decisions made by the coalition have directly led to the insurgency?(and don't write 'the American invasion' etc.)

[ronin2172]

i think the lightning advance into Iraq is partly to blame. Kinda like when the germans invaded russia. they moved fast (as they had to), but they left signifigant pockets of russian troops behind. These soldiers didn't simply run away they formed into partisan units and harrassed the German supply lines for the duration of the fighting in russia. An interesting parallel to the situation in Iraq.

During the march on baghdad i remember reports that US troops were finding uniforms but no troops, now most of these guys went home but those hardcore saddam suppoerters blended into the background and waited untill the US got off a war posture and then struck the vulnerable supply lines and such.

I have to agree with the martial law bit, when u r in a chaotic post war situation, u need to assert control. There was resistance in germany post ww2 (stringing wires across roads and such) but it was limited by martial law. I understand wanting to show the iraqi people u r better than the previous regime but to allow things to spiral out of control is not acceptable. The whole letting iraqis keep there weapons thing i never liked.

Add to this the outside influences Iran and the fact that the borders are relativly unprotected and u have the makings of an intolerable situation

[WanderingNomad]

just a few quick (random) reasons that come to my mind:

The lawlessness and looting after the war
The clashes in Fallujah right after the war where several civilians were killed
The occupation by western forces itself
The Interim Governing Council installed by the US
The disbanding/vanishing of the former Army
The rivalry between pro-US kurds and the rest of the country
The american arrogance (compare to the somewhat better) attitude of the british
The western forces being 'crusaders', a threat to Islam
The hypocrisy of the US government
The reconstruction process who's mainly a great way for AMERICAN firms to make billions, instead of letting Iraqis do the job for a tenth or less of the costs
The US unconditional support of Israel
The new 'official' Iraqi flag, hahahahaha :cantbeli:
The loss of trust because George I. told the Shi'ites to rise after the First Gulf War and then let Saddam butcher them

...

[afrographX]

During the march on baghdad i remember reports that US troops were finding uniforms but no troops, now most of these guys went home but those hardcore saddam suppoerters blended into the background and waited untill the US got off a war posture and then struck the vulnerable supply lines and such.


Only a minority of the insurgents in iraq are saddam supporters(the story that saddam controlled the rebels from his hideout is a myth). Some of them may say that it was better under saddam, but most of them don't want the regime back. They are simply against the US-occupation, because it didn't improve their situation much, actually concerning some aspects it made it worse.



There was resistance in germany post ww2 (stringing wires across roads and such) but it was limited by martial law. I understand wanting to show the iraqi people u r better than the previous regime but to allow things to spiral out of control is not acceptable. The whole letting iraqis keep there weapons thing i never liked.


First of all you CAN'T compare the post-war-situation in iraq and germany.
In the german population there was after the war a certain awareness of guilt. Many wanted the end of the war and the hitler regime since it was clear that the war was lost and the dictator a psychotic. There was no real resistance (after the end of the war) against the allied occupation because the majority of the germans welcomed them as liberators.

In Iraq this is totally different.Because most of the iraquis see the coalition forces and especially the american forces as unlawful invaders and occupiers. They are not willing to accept any US-determination over their destiny.

[ronin2172]

i wasn't comparing iraq to anything...did i say this is the same situation....no. All i said was that i saw a point in having martial law.....and there was resistance in germany post ww2, was it major? no but if they didn't have martial law it could have grown.

During the march on baghdad i remember reports that US troops were finding uniforms but no troops, now most of these guys went home but those hardcore saddam suppoerters blended into the background and waited untill the US got off a war posture and then struck the vulnerable supply lines and such.

i never said that all of the insurgents were saddam supporters, i was using it as an example to illustrate my point. Did i say saddam was controlling anyone....no. So don't put words into my mouth.

[American Patriot]

The real reason is that the Shiites weren't allowed to control Iraq with their brand of authoritarian Islam. The democratic Iraqi government will have to fight very hard against the insane Islamist Shias, Wahhabis, and Sunna for a long time.

[WanderingNomad]

The real reason is that the Shiites weren't allowed to control Iraq with their brand of authoritarian Islam. The democratic Iraqi government will have to fight very hard against the insane Islamist Shias, Wahhabis, and Sunna for a long time.

So the US will stay there for a long time. But that's what they want anyway. Think the biggest embassy in the world (3000 persons) is a coincidence?

[Kriz]

The lack of understanding of Iraq and in general Arabic culture and traditions imho has caused many problems which could have been avoided.

For example the arrestations of women is an awfull thing in most Iraq's opnion, so then don't arrest women unless it's really necessary.

Another thing I think wasn't handled in a decent way was the powervaccuum created after the topple of the regime and the pushing of democracy. I just don't believe they'll get along with democracy right away, If people of a nation really want a democracy they'll revolt. So don't try and force a democracy on the Iraq people when they barely understand the concept and don't really like it at all.

I've also heard that after the end of teh war was declared british troops took off their kevlar and stuf while american things continued to wear them. I think it's these things, these sings that are not easily forgotten by the Iraqis that causes many problems. In their eyes it's still eye for eye, tooth for tooth which is a logic that will never bring peace. Especially not when coalition troops follow that logic too :|

Anyway I hope this helps you with the report !

[Royal]

Political civilians in control of the ball game over there. During the post-war years in Japan and Germany both countries where under military control and were forced by gunpoint to accept the constitutions that we made for them.

Also, there were and are not enough troops for the post-war operations. If there were more we could definitly impose marshall law upon the country. Again this goes back to the WWII-post war years, MacArthur for the first 3 years I believe had marshall law upon Japan and it worked.

Rubbish - there is absolutely no comparison between either Germany and Japan or either and Iraq. Germany had a sense of collective guilt about its actions in WWII and the occupiers in Japan had the 'blessing' and support of the Emporer.

The only thing true in that statement is that there were not enough troops (and not enough with the right training) in theatre for the transition to PEO's.


Not enough force to deal with the insurgents that are already and have been in country. The civilians in charge are too worried about the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis that they forget that even though Bush declared MAJOR combat ops over, the country is still a military area of operations. This as well goes back towards the WWII post years and the fact that civilians are in charge. You dont let your big ass killer dog loose unless you are prepared to let him finish the job. They are holding the chains back, case in point Fallujah. The civilian leadership would not allow the Marines to resolve the situtation by brute force, which is all these people understand, which was a huge mistake. The insurgents now have more courage to fight us because they think they have beaten the almighty United States of America.

Again rubish.

If we claim that we come to libertate the Iraqi people, rather than simply take control of their oil, we must abide by the rule of law. That means we must be accountable to the highest authority - now our own national governements, soon to be the INC.

Leaving combat troops (of any nationality or cap badge) to operate to war fighting ROE will (and does) lead to the alienation of the populace and whatever we call them, or think of them they are (appartantly) why we are there.

Our biggest problem now is that we are not seen as (as we were initially at least) as liberators, but as occupiers. No matter how we try to justify it, no one likes to see their country occupied.

That is why we have to hand over power to the INC and become accountable to it.

To answer Ngati's question, the causes of the post war insurgency are;

a. our continued occupation

and

b. our failure to maintain/impliment effective civil institutions and maintain law and order

This applies both to the Bagdhad and Basrah areas (the only ones I have first hand knowledge of).

[johnnysix]

culturally, the Bedoin culture sees hard work and manual labor a thing for slaves and non-Bedoins. mixed with the drive for easy success through the important oil trade, this culture in general likes to see end-results fast, much like us americans. the only problem is, they're not as willing to put in the work and labor for the above said cultural concern and thus do not see the u.s. aiding them faster than they could in reconstruction efforts. so insurgents arise claiming better and faster solutions, and the u.s. loses out in trying to win patience.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Thanks to everyone for their replies so far.

[Uninen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_resistance
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1124150/posts
http://www.harktheherald.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=18786

Theres few (3) links to you about the subject, study them if you havent already, maybe youll learn something new / different.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Thanks Uninen. Good to see you can contribute something useful to a discussion.

[aktarian]

http://www.d-n-i.net

specially

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c503.htm

[Caribou Kid]

Wasn't sure if it'll help your report much, but I was going to reccommend you try looking at the insurgency issue from the point of view of an Iraqi, for a balanaced, objective perspective. I don't mean some Fedayeen joker with an IED-building factory in his basement, but a stable, logical, non-extremist person.

I was thinking of Salam-Pax, the Baghdad blogger.

I have his book, (Salam Pax; Google will tell you more...sorry :oops: )and saw him interviewed on the BBC. Quite an interesting chap; very literate and educated, not at all what one would envisage your "joe-average" Iraqi citizen would be like. He was there prior to, during, and after the hostilities..still is now, as well, but I think he writes a syndicated column for "The Guardian." Check it out...If you wanna have an inkling on the reasons for insurgency from a (balanced, well-read, friendly, westernized) native's POV, you could do worse than trying to start there.... as a counterpoint to all the media stories (Both pro and anti- western) spoon-fed to the rest of the world, his anecdotes and observations are refreshingly honest and frank, and he has a pretty cool, dry sense of humor to boot! p-)

Speaking objectively, it would behoove you to offer an alternative viewpoint in your brief, one seen through the eyes of not just someone who has done a few tours through the region, but been there for years and years. Salam Pax, whilst being a mere blogger, albeit one based out of the Sandbox, is a voice of calm and reason in the midst of a sea of madness. You could do worse than incorporate him into your picture of the overall scheme of things.

Not really the best reply I've ever posted, but I hope it helps your briefing prep, mate.