portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

actions & protests | anti-racism | imperialism & war

Guerrilla War In Iraq Is Out of Control

The message of all this information - most of it unreported by the media - is that the Americans are no longer safe anywhere in Iraq.
Robert Fisk: Guerrilla war in Iraq is out of control

The message of all this information - most of it unreported by the media - is that the Americans are no longer safe anywhere in Iraq:

07/23/03: (New Zealand Herald)

In official US military documents, they are called 'attackers' or just plain 'Iraqis.' In the press handouts printed by the occupation authorities, they are - in the grand style of all Soviet propaganda during the Afghan war - "subversive elements."

When Operation Soda Mountain ended on July 17, the propaganda boys of the "Coalition Press Information Centre" outdid even the Russians by boasting that the American raids had "successfully achieved the objectives of neutralising subversive individuals".

But alas they did not. For all the talk of detentions and arms finds - 'Soda Fountain' led to 611 arrests and the reported discovery of 4,297 mortar rounds and 1,346 rocket-propelled grenades - the Iraqi guerrilla war against the United States is becoming increasingly deadly.

On Saturday, for example, a US military map of Baghdad violence showed 10 security 'incidents' over the previous 48 hours. They included the discovery of mortar shells tied together on roads near Baghdad airport and a mortar fired at the occupation army at their base inside the international airport perimeter.

They also included the finding of a dead Iraqi and a wounded man who had been preparing yet another bomb near the airport, this time made of an 82mm shell, wire and blasting caps.

A section of a July 19 report shows just how frequent these guerrilla attacks have become:

"Iqtissadiyin: 19/07 morning (?). Attack on CF (Coalition Forces)," it says.

"Three RPG (rocket-propelled grenades) fired at CF convoy.

"Iqtissadiyin: 18/07 about 00:30. Attack on CF. Small arms fired at CF from overpass and subsequently from nearby houses...

"Hurriyah: 18/07 morning. Attacks on CF. Small arms fired at CF soldier on duty at gas station, four assailants killed when CF returned fire.

"Ash Shabab: 18/07 morning. Attack against Iraqi civilians. Suspect fired three shots at Baghdad Hotel; the vehicle used by the assailant was already spotted while involved into (sic) hostile surveillance of CF position."

And so on and on.

In one 24-hour period, the UN recorded six attacks across Iraq, including an RPG fired at an American camp near Mosul, an assault on an Iraqi police station in Muqidiyah northeast of Baghdad, a heavy machine gun fired at US troops during a medical evacuation near Kerbala and a car that tried to ram an American checkpoint near Qatum.

One of the more disturbing elements of the American reports is the separation of incidents involving US troops and the violence inflicted on civilians or Iraqi police.

On the attack at the police station, the gunman is referred to as a "criminal".

Assaults on Americans are described as "Significant Incidents" while assaults on Iraqi civilians - during the theft of their cars, for example - are referred to under the simple heading of "Crime". American lives, the underlying tenor of these reports seems to be, are more important than innocent Iraqi lives.

Another security report - this time from the United Nations - records the third attempt by guerrillas to shoot down an American helicopter near Kerbala with an anti-aircraft gun.

The latest incident occurred only hours after a ground-to-air missile was fired at an American C-130 military cargo aircraft at Baghdad airport, an attack that was publicly acknowledged. Where the gunmen hide so big a weapon as an anti-aircraft gun is not recorded.

But the message of all this information - most of it unreported by the media - is that the Americans are no longer safe anywhere in Iraq: not at Baghdad airport, which they captured with so much fanfare in early April, not at their military bases nor in the streets of central Baghdad, nor in their helicopters nor on the country roads.

A regular guerrilla war has broken out in Iraq. And it's getting ever more out of control.

 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4197.htm

homepage: homepage: http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

Of course 23.Jul.2003 12:26

snaggle

I never heard of a "controlled" guerrila war. Of course it's dangerous. More reason then to restore order.

of course 23.Jul.2003 12:41

historian

The United States government sold the Vietnam war as a guerilla war that was not "out of control" so I would think everyone would have heard of that. However, for anyone that believes that the current administration of the United States has any interest in restoring order in Iraq I would advise you to be prepared for a lot of disappointment. The United States cannot put together a new stable dictatorship anytime soon, and it will not turn the country over to the Shi'a majority through a democracy. What we will see is a continued occupation, opposition to any locally held elections, and perhaps a series of new governments that will last only a short period of time.

one or the other 24.Jul.2003 11:51

TheTroll

Either the guerrila war in Iraq is out of controle, or the guerrilas are contoling themselves until the US risks its own troops to kill Saddam, and there is no chance of his return.

I think you're incorrect, historian 25.Jul.2003 09:06

snaggle

"The United States cannot put together a new stable dictatorship anytime soon"

I don't believe the US is interested in putting together a dictatorship.

"...for anyone that believes that the current administration of the United States has any interest in restoring order in Iraq..."

I believe we're busting our butts trying to restore order, and it's been harder to do than we anticipated. Part of the problem is getting the Iraqis to participate. Not everybody wants to be an activist. Democracy and freedom is hard, not easy.

I'm confident time will prove me right 25.Jul.2003 13:52

historian

"I don't believe the US is interested in putting together a dictatorship."
Such blind faith, it's really cute in a way. Well, here's a list of US interventions, the bulk of which supported military dictatorships:  http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/interventielijst.html. The US has a long proud history of installing dictators, like Saddam Hussein. And since they have no interest in allowing the majority group to be in power in Iraq, they really don't have much choice.

"I believe we're busting our butts trying to restore order"
If you mean by "busting our butts" you mean stopping elections, not providing jobs, not providing social services, not restoring the basic infrastructure, not providing training, not assisting the creation of government oversight, than I guess you might be right.

"it's been harder to do than we anticipated"
Who's "we"? This is exactly what I anticipated, and I suspect it's what the military planners and the administration anticipated too. Don't let them fool you with their lies. Anyone who has done any study into the politics and history of the middle east saw this coming. If you didn't, well, then I would suggest it's time to do some reading.

"Democracy and freedom is hard, not easy."
Yes, especially, if you try to create a democracy in a country where you do not want the majority group to be in control. Most difficult indeed. But then, that is why you will not see democracy in Iraq anytime soon. Maybe in a year or so you will begin to understand. If you did some reading you might understand now. The US government has always done whatever it could to keep the Shiites out of power. During the first gulf war, for example, the US signed a cease-fire with Hussein when the Shiites began their uprising so that Hussein could put them down, leading to all those mass-graves in the south. The reason for that was because the US did not want the Shiites to topple Hussein's regime. If the US had supported the Shiites, that's what would have happened. Obviously, it was perceived to be the in the best interest of the country (in other words, the interests of the corporations) to leave Hussein in power and let him massacre the Shiites than to support the Shiites in overthrowing Hussein. Oh, and in case you don't know, the Shiites are the majority group in Iraq.