Reply
Thu 26 May, 2005 11:08 pm
Quote:Analysis: Surge in Iraq violence
BBC
US says it is mounting a major counter-insurgency operation
Since the beginning of the month, more than 550 people have been killed in Iraq. Experts are left struggling to explain the escalation of violence.
The latest attacks by insurgents have been largely in the centre and north of the country. There have been attacks in different parts of Baghdad, in Tikrit about 175km (110 miles) to the north, and, further north, in the town of Hawija, near Kirkuk.
There has also been fierce fighting between US forces and suspected Islamic militants in what is often called Iraq's "wild west", near the Syrian border.
A big US operation is under way against a suspected network of the radical Jordanian Islamist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
The violence has shattered the lull which followed the Iraqi election at the end of January.
April saw a sharp increase in attacks, especially suicide bombings, and this month there has so far been no let-up.
See a graph showing the level of recent attacks
Experts offer various explanations as to who is behind the escalation of violence and why.
US officials now see the foreign "jihadi" fighters as their most important, and most ruthless, enemies - even though, numerically, these fighters are outnumbered by Iraqi insurgents.
The insurgency seems to have shrunk as its tactics have become more vicious, according to senior US officials quoted this week in the Washington Post.
The US still appears to know little about the insurgents
The same officials believe former loyalists of the Saddam Hussein regime are reassessing their strategy in the light of the election. Some of them seem ready to abandon violence and enter the political game.
This helps explain why US forces are targeting the "jihadis" with a large-scale assault in the west of the country. They are convinced foreign fighters are continuing to cross from Syria into this lawless desert region.
Many of them join the network run by Zarqawi.
US forces have the twin aim of clearing out an area that has become a haven for Islamists and smugglers and, if possible, killing or capturing Zarqawi.
Political vacuum
As to why there has been such a surge of attacks by insurgents, the most widely-shared view links it to Iraq's messy political evolution.
Three months of haggling over the creation of a new government created a political vacuum which insurgent groups have sought to exploit.
Now that a new government has been sworn in, these groups have an interest in trying to undermine its credibility. But that is only a theory.
What is striking, more than two years after the war which toppled Saddam Hussein, is how little the Americans appear to know about their enemy.
There are thought to be dozens of insurgent groups, with differing agendas. They sometimes act autonomously, sometimes in loose co-operation.
The stark truth may be that no one can know for sure whether there is a pattern to the insurgency, or why the violence ebbs and flows.
SOURCE
Doesn't seem to be any surprises here, except that they can't seem to figure out why people are fighting back after their country was invaded. It seems hard to believe that they all want a democracy and are happy that Mr. Bush sent in the troops to "liberate" them.
In a related story on your source, it also indicates that member of the coalition are pulling out...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Bulgarian parliament has endorsed the decision to pull the country's 450 troops out of Iraq by the end of the year.
Japan is reported to be planning to do the same thing.
The Ukrainians, among others, have been withdrawing. Poland is cutting its commitment.
After some very acrimonious departures in the past - like that of the Philippines - it is difficult to escape the impression that Washington's band of coalition partners in Iraq is dwindling.
Of course, US officials would prefer it was not happening, with the security situation still very uncertain.
One bit of good news for the Americans has been that, despite recent strains in their relations, Italy seems to be staying for now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You may remember that Italy was going to pull their 3000 troops out in March. The Dutch left last year.
Does all this mean that the U.S. will have to increase their troop strength in Iraq?
How long did those countries agree to have troops there? Is there agreement done with? If so then that is a good reason that they are pulling troops. If that isn't the case then we will see how things go. We could start pulling a majority of our troops out in the next year so we never know what is going to happen.
Baldimo wrote:How long did those countries agree to have troops there? Is there agreement done with? If so then that is a good reason that they are pulling troops. If that isn't the case then we will see how things go. We could start pulling a majority of our troops out in the next year so we never know what is going to happen.
If you had read the source, you would have the answers to some of your questions. There was no agreement on a timeline. Face it.... they have had enough!
If that is so then that is fine. I liked the idea that they helped. It was better then some of our "allies" did. Some help is better then no help. We will see what the future holds.
Some of your allies rightly determined that there was no justification for an invasion and wisely chose not to be drawn into Bush's scheme.
Intrepid wrote:Some of your allies rightly determined that there was no justification for an invasion and wisely chose not to be drawn into Bush's scheme.
Then they complained that they didn't get to help in the rebuilding. Go figure. Did you know that France and Germany are both having elections soon? It is also said that the polls in those countries show that said leaders are in trouble due to their economies.
JustanObserver wrote:Baldimo:

You ever hear the Scorpions song Wind of Change? I think there is going to be a change in those countries and it is going to be in our favor. The Socialists in those countries are learning that while the have "good international" politics they can't handle their national politics. These countries have had zero growth in economies as well as jobs and a change in those areas will bring change in others. Watch and see.
No one said we weren't going to "watch and see."
No matter how you look forward to something doesn't mean that presently its pretty obvious that Bush has screwed the pooch in a major way.