I earlier predicted that the situation in Iraq would be relatively quiet by March. This increasingly seems reasonable to me. One senses that the Iraqi people themselves perceive the violence as nothing more than a modest problem. The overall country appears eager to foster economic growth---and even a democratic consensus. There are a number of Islamic militants willing to commit suicide. Still, the Baathist Party is a secular organization similar to a gangster mob. Such scum bags are not interested in dying! The coalition forces must simply remain determined. Time is not on the side of the insurgents.

My biggest fear is that they give up fighting US troops as too tough and start waging a terrorist war against the Iraqi. It wouldn't be too hard for them to be killing 100 Iraqi a day, and probably a lot safer for them. Make it clear they stop killing when coalition abandons Iraq.

Very few countries could be successfully established under those conditions.

The currency exchange will gut them. See the Strategy Page piece on the subject.

We are going to win in Iraq. There has been very little doubt of that. At this point, it looks like we are not going to reconcile the Sunni with non-Sunni Democratic rule.

The Sunni are going to continue to be obstreperous enough to keep the American military active enough to strip the Sunnis of all their stockpiled Ba'athist weapons and cash in the Sunni triangle over then next 3-4 years.

This will have consequences.

As soon as we leave Iraq, and we will eventually, the Shia and Kurds are going to ethnically cleanse the Sunni from ~ 10% of Iraq's population to less than 5% of the population.

The Sunni have the cadre of ex-officers and NCOs to quickly create a militia army *NOW* to over run the rest of the country, but without weapons or cash a few years from now. They will be in the same position as the Bosnian Muslims facing the Serbs in 1993.

Tough for them.

“Make it clear they stop killing when coalition abandons Iraq.”

But it will not stop “when (the) coalition abandons Iraq.” No, the killing would only dramatically increase. The Iraqi “resistance” is comprised mostly of thugs similar to the Mafia. Their ultimate goal is to establish a form of mobster rule. The Iraqi majority is well aware of this harsh fact---and therefore know that they cannot surrender. Also, what the hell is a mere 100 murders a day? Saddam Hussein killed a lot more than that! Who can do the math? The former Iraqi dictator is responsible for over easily a million deaths. Now divide that estimate by 100. How long will it take to equal Saddam’s totals?

It is also worth remembering that there IS a difference between a genuine insurgency and simply killing.

If the Ba'athists/Hussein supporters are going to hope for more than simply controlling the area around Tikrit, they must have the support of a broader spectrum of the people. This was the basis of Mao's observation regarding "The guerilla is a fish, and the people are the sea in which the fish swim." No insurgency is likely to gain much popular support if it is perceived as making life WORSE for the population at large, or if it is perceived as killing the very people it is ostensibly fighting to support.

Tom H: Reference for the article you mention? Couldn't find it on the Strategy page site, sounds interesting. Thanks.

“"The guerilla is a fish, and the people are the sea in which the fish swim." No insurgency is likely to gain much popular support if it is perceived as making life WORSE for the population at large, or if it is perceived as killing the very people it is ostensibly fighting to support. “

Exactly. A Vietnam sort of insurgency demands the widespread support of the hearts and minds of a significant number of people, if not the outright majority. Fear is not a sufficient motivator. Nothing less than a warped sense of love and commitment will do. Once again, Saddam Hussein did not depend on ideology in order to control the general populace. The Baath Party is nothing more than a collection of gangsters---and such individuals are not true believers eager to die for the alleged greater truth.

Except that the Vietnam insurgency didn't work.

The Tet offensive was expected to ignite a truly popular uprising throughout the South, with the people rising up against the government in Saigon. Instead, there was very little popular support for the insurgent VC (probably less than even was around for the corrupt Saigon government).

Remember, it took a very conventional invasion down the coastal highway before South Vietnam fell. That invasion was mounted by North Vietnamese regulars, NOT Viet Cong (most of whom died in 1968).

Tom Holsinger writes: "The currency exchange will gut them"

Unless they try robbing a bank or two.

Daniel Cato,

Looks like it scrolled off. The gist was that the impending currency exchange will deprive the Baathist holdouts of their chief means of buying attacks on American forces. They'll have to choose between using their limited amount of hard currency (chiefly dollars) to do so, or to reserve their dollars for buying protection from Shiite revenge, or to reserve their dollars for buying escape to Syria.

Jon H.,

They tried that and 50 of them died in a day the last time.

"As soon as we leave Iraq, and we will eventually, the Shia and Kurds are going to ethnically cleanse the Sunni from ~ 10% of Iraq's population to less than 5% of the population. Tough for them"

Ah, the good old "genocide is OK when our clients do it." Makes a change from "Look at the mass graves!" and "Only a Saddam apologist would say the Kurds had it coming".

Armed robbery is booming business in Baghdad, Mr. Holsinger. And not only for "insurgents"; Baathists are not the only entrepreneurs who have noted the lack of a functioning police force outside the Green Zone.

But it will not stop “when (the) coalition abandons Iraq.” No, the killing would only dramatically increase. The Iraqi “resistance” is comprised mostly of thugs similar to the Mafia. Their ultimate goal is to establish a form of mobster rule.

Absolutely, but the Iraqi are more likely to blame someone they can possible influence (the Americans), rather than a resistance they cannot affect.

As well, home opinion is not going to be helped by news shots of villages destroyed, massacres in markets, and so on, regardless of whether Saddam Hussein was killing many more in his dungeons. Unfair though it is, now it is perceived as the conquerors fault. "If they couldn't secure it, they shouldn't have invaded it."

As for popular support, there seem to be a number of guerilla movements in South America, Asia, and Africa that have survived decades whose main objectives seems to be (more or less) pointlessly massacring civilians. Often governments fight back by pointlessly massacring civilians :-(.

Anyway, I hope Iraq is different, but at some point when they realize that killing an American or two a day isn't stopping the Americans, I'm desperately afraid they'll switch tactics...

The only reason we only have a few KIA per week, as opposed to tens or even hundreds, is because the American military in Iraq lives totally isolated from the population at large.

If they tried to live and work openly, as they did in Japan and Germany in the post war, casualties would jump immediately.

The coordinated attacks that killed four soldiers in Karbala yesterday seems to me to be an ominous development. But the fatalities suffered by our troops in Iraq, while extremely unfortunate for the soldiers and their families, have never been remarkably large. And as the previous commentator has noted, the U.S. can contain the fatalities by reducing the quality of our security services. What concerns me more is the disintegration of Iraq into bloody civil strife. There is a real chance that our election year withdrawal from active government will lead to chaos.

BP,

You confuse terms. Bank robberies are a subset of armed robberies. Banks have armed guards. The last major bank robbery attempt, in Samarra, resulted in @ 50 KIA for the Baathist attackers.

It is much safer to rob people who don't have armed guards with radios who call American troops for help. Iraqis who don't have such protection are being robbed. Not banks.

Holsinger is still apparently using dated PR. Iraqi doctors on the scene in Samarra didn't even confirm those numbers. And there isn't any particular reason why the insurgency can't just trade in their money like everyone else. Not to mention that there was a successful bank robbery as admitted by the military there in addition.

People here are trying real hard to talk themselves into the idea that Iraq will turn out okie dokey. Well, all things being equal it seems to be slowly sliding toward anarchy. Political assassinations and militia death squads are up. Increased Iraqi police despite much press have failed to stem any sort of violence. Iraqification of the security situation has been beset with setbacks. Simply buying fuel or getting regular electricity in the country is still a debacle.

The US military can by using harsh measures and bunkering up stretch out the situation indefinitely. South Vietnam fell because of the weakness and corruption of the quisling government we'd installed. The measure of our success in Iraq will be measured by the strength and robustness of the domestic government we leave behind there. As of now, it is weak, divided, and lacks legitimacy. It would last a few weeks tops without US military support. Karzai wouldn't last all that long either without US support.

Is it going to be a nightmarish debacle? Probably not, though civil war edges ever closer. Is it going to be a stunning success for democratization in the middle-east? Doesn't look that way now. People trying to talk themselves into some other conclusion otherwise are mostly just engaging in wistful thinking.

Oldman,

The Baathist holdouts with billions of dollars worth (nominal value) of old Saddam Hussein Smiling currency are trading it in for new currency, but not even most of it. The problem is the terms of the currency exchange - in particular the terms which facilitate tracing back to the Baathist holdouts.

IMO a national census plus blood samples from, and "chipping" of, residents of areas interest would also be helpful.

But if you think the currency exchange means nothing, I can sell you lots of Enron bonds real cheap.

Ditto if you think armed robberies of Iraqi banks are more than welcome opportunities for our security forces.

We're winning. The Sunnis are starting to realize the fate waiting for them when we leave.

Lurking Observer:

Don't judge the Southern VC purely on the success or failure of the Tet offensive (which was a stratagem more or less intentionally based on sacrificing them). They did a lot of damage and had genuine popular support rather along the lines of Castro's guerillas. It's not in the nature of guerilla forces to win big battles or to control territory, and the VC did about as much as could reasonably have been expected of them. The Cu Chi tunnels, for example, simply could not have been maintained if there was little or no public support for the fighters inside them.

dsquared:

Obviously, there was SOME support for the VC, else they could not have survived for as long as they did.

What they did not have was overwhelming support across the country. Or, more to the point, they were nowhere near as popular as they thought they were.

And the idea that the Tet Offensive was simply aimed at sacrificing the VC infrastructure begs the question of just WHO was doing the sacrificing. I presume you mean the North Vietnamese happily sacrificed the VC of the South, a point, sadly, oft-denied at the time (i.e., that the war was ultimately one by North Vietnam against South Vietnam).

More to the point, the VC arguably enjoyed far broader support (if not as much as they thought) than the current insurgency would appear to enjoy in Iraq. IF the reporting is accurate and the insurgency is being directed by five Tikriti families, (something plausible in tribal Iraq, unlike less tribally-oriented Vietnam), then the main support is not even among Sunnis per se, but among Tikritis. That casts this insurgency in a somewhat different light.

We're winning. The Sunnis are starting to realize the fate waiting for them when we leave.

I'm not certain what *your* definition is, but if an ethnic cleansing follows the US departure, then I'd say we've *lost*. Big time.

I hope that some of the optimists here are correct, but I find it increasingly possible that we're witnessing the end of American military dominance. It seems obvious that the Iraqi insurgency could keep this up forever, and probably worse. Whether they will or not is a function of their determination and the currently unknown true believer to mercenary ratio, but it strikes me that they'll probably never give up and we'll never really win. Iraq will always be a money pit for us, and our level of victory will be directly proportionate to our willingness to spend american lives and american tax dollars to maintain it.

Mr. West,

Victory in the Iraq occupation campaign (conquering the place was a different campaign) depends on our relationship with Iraq's Shiite majority, not its Sunni minority. The Shiites are the strategic center of gravity.

It would be nice if we succeed in turning all of Iraq's factions into ones we can live peacefully with. That's not the only way to win.

A horrible example of the price of not kissing up to the Americans would be useful too. The Sunnis have some influence on which way we win.

Iraq won't be the last campaign in our war with terror.

We're doing this for us, not for them.

The Iraqi Sunni have lost.

What is happening now is the determination of how much the Iraqi Sunni have lost and how much more they can lose.

Democrats are in a similar position in that they can't acknowledge that we are not fighting overseas primarily for the benefit of foreigners, AKA foreign policy as social work, but strictly for the benefit of American security.

Democrats don’t believe in the latter. Their moving the goal posts for victory down field for Iraq and the war on terrorism in general is their reaction to this. Rather than 'defining deviancy downward,' as they do for domestic social policy, Democrats are instead 'defining victory upward' for American Foreign and National Security policy.

Like the Iraqi Sunni, we are going to see how far the Democrats want to throw good after bad before they acknowledge their political defeat in the War on Terrorism.

Victory in the Iraq occupation campaign (conquering the place was a different campaign) depends on our relationship with Iraq's Shiite majority, not its Sunni minority.

A horrible example of the price of not kissing up to the Americans would be useful too. The Sunnis have some influence on which way we win.

While a perhaps a good strategic example, Bush has predicated (in the absence of generally acceptable smoking gun) much of the justification for the war on making life better for the Iraqi.

Having Iraq generate into a civil war that makes (in terms of human lives) Saddam look good certainly won't help most Americans feel good about this war. To say nothing about it inviting intervention from just about every power in the region.

Also, the Americans are likely to ask why they just spent billions to rebuild when a civil war is taking it all to pieces. (Unless you are talking about a "final solution" sort of efficient liquidation, also not easily spun.)

If what you say does look like it will come to pass, I'll be curious how the Bush administration prepares the public to countenance genocide in a positive (or at least necessary) light.

Not every civil war is genocidal, you know.

It is certainly possible that you could wind up w/ a divided Iraq, without genocide.

If the Sunnis were to flee.
If the Sunnis were to surrender to the Shi'ites.

Alternatively, if the Sunnis thought that only in a united Iraq might they NOT wind up disenfranchised (much more common in the wake of civil wars) or oppressed (ditto), then they might well be incentivized to cooperate with the US in creating a working Iraq.

And before you dismiss the idea that we could just pay these people to live with each other, keep in mind that that is exactly what we have done with Egypt, in the form of a $2-3 billion a year aid package, to keep them in their cold peace with the Israelis.

Tom West,

We have a moral duty to _try_ to save Iraq's Sunni Arabs. Whether we succeed or nor is up to them, not us. History has shown over and over that you can't help people who don't want to be helped. At best you can keep them alive until they change their mind.

We will leave Iraq eventually. Iraq's Sunnis are doing a pretty good job of making us disarm them. This will result in their being unable to resist what will happen when we leave.

Bloody massacres of ethnic minorities aren't civil wars. Ask the Armenians.

Not every civil war is genocidal, you know.

Indeed. I sincerely hope (and currently believe) that there won't be one. My comments are mostly directed at Tom Holsinger's comment:

We're winning. The Sunnis are starting to realize the fate waiting for them when we leave.

which I personally thought was contradictory.

Whether we succeed or nor is up to them, not us. History has shown over and over that you can't help people who don't want to be helped.

Agreed, however, if you are the "enabler", then "genocide by association" can reduce your moral superiority to a mound of ashes very quickly.

Then we have the problem of, if the genocide of the Sunni is accomplished by an organized government, how do we deal with this government? Does the USA want to be seen as someone who deals with a government accused of crimes against humanity?

And though security might be (or ought to be) the ultimate goal of the government, I believe that the majority of US citizens want to be proud of its conduct in war despite extreme provocation.

The case against Saddam is even more difficult given the tenuousness of the connections between him and WMD and terrorists.

It's a treacherous path. In my opinion, peace *must* succeed for the USA to have victory, despite Sunni actions.

Permission to fight is given to those (i.e. believers against disbelievers) who are fighting them (and) because they (believers) have been wronged, and surely Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory. Those who have been expelled from their homes unjustly only because they said:"Our Lord is Allah." (V.22:39,40).

Praise be to Allah swt Who has ordained Al-Jihad (the holy fighting in Allah's Cause). For the past 50 years, the United States has essentially been engaged in a war against Islam throughout the world- a fact that has escaped most here and is usually ridiculed. The U.S has unquestionably supported Israel, even as it uprooted millions of Muslims from their homes and killed tens of thousands of innocents, and continued to bring in settlers from around the world to take Muslim land. The Zionist lobby directs the actions of the U.S government. Consider how men such as Richard Perle and his comrades, now in power, hold such close ties to the Likud party and have written strategic reports for Israel. Consider how the U.S toppled a democratic government in Iran to install the tyrannical shah. Consider how the U.S has support other cruel regimes throughout the Muslim world, such as Saudi Arabia, as long as their economic interests are honored. This includes Saddam Hussein, a socialist traitor and slave to America, who was one of the U.S's closest friends in the 1980's. As soon as Iraq invaded Kuwait, with American diplomatic support, a massive bombing campaign was launched. Thousands of innocents were killed without mercy. Following the war, the U.S settled into occupying the land of the two holy mosques and many Gulf States. Meanwhile, it pushed for devestating sanctions that eventually killed a million and a half Iraqi children. But that slaughter was not great enough. It had to launch another war, remove it's puppet, and fully occupy the country. Now, the glorious mujahedeen are finally answering the call and will cause America to pay dearly for their transgressions. No, Baathists could not win a guerilla war against the U.S. But they are not the ones fighting. The Iraqis are fighting for their land, their religion, and their culture. Your hard talk and delusions- that 56 resistance fighters were killed in Samarra while only 9 civilians were killed, for an example- is a sign of desperation. Perhaps when the U.S loses and we finally see an Islamic government in Baghdad, the former seat of the caliphate, you will finally come to your senses.

"If Allah is your helper, none can overcome you.
But if He withdraws His help from you,
then who is there who can help you?
In Allah then, let believers put their trust!"
(Al-Qur'an 3:160)

Allahu Akbar!
God is Great!