04-07-2003 23:50									#1
	Some Small Good News From Iraq Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Today, 11 Iraqis ambushed a convoy, resulting in no American injuries and 11 dead Iraqis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ml?nav=hptop_tb

Now you are correct to ask why this is good news, especially since 1 American soldier was also killed today by a sniper in Baghdad.

As I understand it, the first stage of a guerilla war is taking potshots at troops in a semi-organized fashion. Some sabotage is also useful at this stage. The second stage of a guerilla war is fighting out in the open (whatever the terrain may be) with small units in an organized fashion using hit and run tactics. It has been said that making the transition from one stage to another is difficult.

This ambush seems to indicate that the terrain of Iraq is inhospitable to this second stage of guerilla action. Further, it seems to indicate that our troops have capabilities and composition sufficient to counter opposition above a onesies or twosies level. Certainly, this ambush made squad-level opposition appear ineffective.

	04-07-2003 23:53									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

So an attack against the US is god news, as long as it failed to cause us any harm?

So we can prevent any insurgency from growing? Oh goody. Now can you tell us how we can do to END it? Since the first stage insurgents have not done that badly in the past month.

	04-07-2003 23:55									#3
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

You're right. The first-stage insurgents have been effective. However, we're not sitting on our hands otherwise. We're organizing an Iraqi national army, for instance. We're adding some small police capabilities every day, for another instance. We're reorganizing national bureaus to take care of the people as well. That's how you end the insurgency.

	05-07-2003 00:01									#4
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Well, squad level guerilla needs to take place either in dense forests / mountains, where they can hide easily after hitting, or in urban areas. Iraqi mountains are under Kurd control, and support the US, and there are no forests of any significance in Iraq (about 0,2% of Iraq's surface is covered by forests ).
As such, the squad strategy may only work in cities, but that would require a significant support from the locals. Time will tell if such a thing happens. I personally don't think so: while very few Iraqis enjoy seeing Yank troops roaming on their streets, I assume even fewer Iraqis want to see Saddam back. ANd an organized resistance will most likely end up supporting Saddam.

	05-07-2003 00:17									#5
	Increase Your PM Length

As such, the squad strategy may only work in cities, but that would require a significant support from the locals. Time will tell if such a thing happens. I personally don't think so: while very few Iraqis enjoy seeing Yank troops roaming on their streets, I assume even fewer Iraqis want to see Saddam back. ANd an organized resistance will most likely end up supporting Saddam.

Well, you never know until it's tried. You might be blinded by your doctrine, rather than helped by it. That's why this ambush is good news, even if preliminary. Maybe they'll be successful in the next ambush. Who knows?

	05-07-2003 00:23									#6
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The second stage isn't necessary. The rebels will be successfull if the US pulls out. There is much danger of that if the first stage continues to be successfull and Bush continues to fail to govern Iraq.

	05-07-2003 00:29									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The US won't pull out, given the current Level 1 activity. Implicit in Bush's comments yesterday was that this kind of activity wouldn't push us out. And again, we aren't sitting on our hands, even though our actions might appear right now to be insufficient.

	05-07-2003 00:37									#8
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Well, you never know until it's tried. You might be blinded by your doctrine, rather than helped by it. That's why this ambush is good news, even if preliminary. Maybe they'll be successful in the next ambush.

Erm, I have trouble finding the causal link between these sentences Could you please elaborate ?

	05-07-2003 00:52									#9
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Well, I'm only saying that putting an insurgency in nice neat stages might bear no reflection to reality. And we can talk about how the terrain is inhospitable. But in the end, we just don't know these things to be true until proven repeatedly. Maybe they'll learn a thing or two from this ambush and be successful in the next ambush, for instance, which will help disprove the theory.

	05-07-2003 00:57									#10
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Indeed.

However, I still don't think the desert / farming scenery is adapted to this kind of ambushes, so I continue to assume they'll only have success in cities, except if occupation soldiers really let their guard down.

	05-07-2003 01:07									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don;t think that all armed groups back a return by Saddam: the longer isntability lasts, and the more convoluted a return to Iraqi governance is, the more time for new groups to spring up to life backing different agendas.

As for tactics: If the Baathists coiuld crush a much bigger and better equiped in srgency in 1991, that happeend to have popular support in the areas it occured, there is no chance that militarilly insurgents could do even a tenth of the damage to the US. BUt as Kid said, the political consequences in OIraq and outside Iraq of a continuation of any insurgency are detrimental to basic US interests and this admin's future in particular.

	05-07-2003 01:11									#12
	Put an end to popups!

The only place where a Level 1 insurgency really makes any difference is in Baghdad. We can be thankful that Saddam was a paranoid dictator and the gift of geograhy.

For instance, as I understand it, most of the electricity in the Shia South is independent of the Baghdad grid. This is so that Saddam could punish the South as he saw fit and so that the South couldn't rebel against him by sabotaging services to Baghdad. But as of yet, there has been no insurgency in the South, and we can proceed apace with reconstruction there even though electricity in Baghdad has been cut by sabotage (as happened at the end of last week).

So far, the most effective action against the US since the end of the war was the cutting of electricity supplies to Baghdad last week. It made us look awful.

Last edited by DanS on 05-07-2003 at 01:16

	05-07-2003 01:20									#13
	Re: Some Small Good News From Iraq Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by DanS Today, 11 Iraqis ambushed a convoy, resulting in no American injuries and 11 dead Iraqis. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ml?nav=hptop_tb Now you are correct to ask why this is good news, especially since 1 American soldier was also killed today by a sniper in Baghdad. As I understand it, the first stage of a guerilla war is taking potshots at troops in a semi-organized fashion. Some sabotage is also useful at this stage. The second stage of a guerilla war is fighting out in the open (whatever the terrain may be) with small units in an organized fashion using hit and run tactics. It has been said that making the transition from one stage to another is difficult. This ambush seems to indicate that the terrain of Iraq is inhospitable to this second stage of guerilla action. Further, it seems to indicate that our troops have capabilities and composition sufficient to counter opposition above a onesies or twosies level. Certainly, this ambush made squad-level opposition appear ineffective.

I wouldn't read that much into it. The guerillas have hardly been around long enough to do anything. Usually takes years to get to next stage. Probably haven't even gotten their recruitment scheme up and running yet.

The thing about guerillas is that you can't just fight to a stalemate with them. The longer they're around the weaker you look and the more sympathy they garner...

	05-07-2003 01:27									#14
	Increase Your PM Length

True. True. It normally does take years. But then, Saddam ran the government only a couple of months ago, so they might have a head start on organization. No?

	05-07-2003 01:33									#15
	Suffering from ads?

On organisation yes, which is why they've actually been managing some successes.

But remember your Mao. They haven't been around long enough that they can swim "as fish in the sea" with the general pop yet. If they are based around restoring the Baath to power then they're going to have to convince people to hate the US more than they hate them first. Then you'll see some more pitched (if still limited) battles.

	05-07-2003 14:20									#16
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DanS The US won't pull out, given the current Level 1 activity. Implicit in Bush's comments yesterday was that this kind of activity wouldn't push us out.

Well what's the dead treshold? 500? 1000? 5000?

	05-07-2003 15:42									#17
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Well what's the dead treshold? 500? 1000? 5000?

That's up to the voters.

	05-07-2003 17:47									#18
	Tired of ads?

The voters, in all likelyhood, will not be moved by trickle casualties for a long, long time.

Anyone know what our current recruitment numbers are like?

	05-07-2003 19:12									#19
	Got spare money?

quote: The voters, in all likelyhood, will not be moved by trickle casualties for a long, long time.

I wouldn't be so sure. I've seen anywhere from 10 to 15% drop in polls gauging the success of the operation since May 1. People are starting to get antsy, especially families of the soldiers.

On top of that, a number of very unflattering media portrayals of the current situation.

	05-07-2003 22:06									#20
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Actually, I don't see it as good news.

I'm cheering for the free Iraqis now.

According to American propaganda,the US the occupying force. Bush has already made it clear Saddam's regime is no longer a threat or a consideration. The US didn't even go to the trouble of installing a pro American figure head as they did in Afghanistan.

I think we should support the Iraqi freedom fighters.

	05-07-2003 23:16									#22
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by DanS Well, I'm only saying that putting an insurgency in nice neat stages might bear no reflection to reality.

Bingo! You win the prize. Insurgency by its nature is rather ill-disciplined in terms of tight adherence to doctrine and rigorous C&C. You'll have different people trying things different ways all the time, but all tending toward small unit tactics.

quote: And we can talk about how the terrain is inhospitable. But in the end, we just don't know these things to be true until proven repeatedly.

Desert terrain isn't that inhospitable when strictly groundfighters are involved. What appears "flat" to the average civvie, or even the average supply REMF, generally has little depressions and rises that provide decent cover.

The real trick is weather - when it's relatively clear and the winds don't kick up much sand, we can fly drones at night to pick up IR signals, and by day as well, although carefully concealed individuals, in up to squad strength, are hard to find that way.

quote: Maybe they'll learn a thing or two from this ambush and be successful in the next ambush, for instance, which will help disprove the theory.

IMO, they don't need to graduate to larger actions than the type that have been successful. In order to really rebuild things, we'll need civilian contractors all over the country - and they're going to be reluctant to come, and tough to escort, if the bad guys are regularly plinking at the good guys.

Another point is that snipers wear on morale disproportionately, and the frustration level translates to hostility towards the locals, leading to more tension and a breakdown in on-the-ground relations between ordinary occupiers and ordinary locals. That sort of simmering resentment doesn't lead to a big welcome for pro-US Iraqi leaders or for much faith on the local's part in American goodwill. And we have to get out of this mess with a friendly government which isn't too obviously our lackey.

	05-07-2003 23:43									#23
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The vast majority of the populated country is not in the hands of the insurgents and never will be. It's Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle that is the problem--that's where all of the soldiers are being plinked. That's where it continues to be tough to provide basic services, which would help to reduce tensions. We can do an awful lot in the friendly areas to keep them friendly, even with civilian contractors worried about their safety, and even if Baghdad continues in a state of near-anarchy. We'll get a disproportionate amount of bad press, however. All the reporters are (perhaps rightly) focusing on where the problems are at.

I don't agree with you that the current level of low-intensity conflict will throw us off of our game--the criteria I would use to describe the insurgency as a success. At least 60% of the country is friendlies, even more are borderline hostiles but we have a good chance of making friendly, because it doesn't rely on anything in the Sunni triangle (Mosul, for instance) and it would take a series of monumental screw-ups on our part to change this fact. Don't put this possibility past us, though!

	06-07-2003 00:01									#24
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by DanS The vast majority of the populated country is not in the hands of the insurgents and never will be. It's Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle that is the problem--that's where all of the soldiers are being plinked. That's where it continues to be tough to provide basic services, which would help to reduce tensions. We can do an awful lot in the friendly areas to keep them friendly, even with civilian contractors worried about their safety, and even if Baghdad continues in a state of near-anarchy. We'll get a disproportionate amount of bad press, however. All the reporters are (perhaps rightly) focusing on where the problems are at.

The Kurds are our boys for the time being - the question is how long will their hospitality remain when they find they still have no hope at independence. Right now, the Kurds are better off in the present situation than they will be in a post-US Iraq, where at best they'll go back to a semi-protected minority group.

The Shiites have other agendas. Some pro-US, some wait and see, some pro-Shiite fundamentalist, but it doesn't do them any good to join in the plinking - what would they gain?

The Sunni center is unfortunately the political, economic, industrial and agricultural center of the country, so we have to control it, even moreso than anything else other than the oilfields and pipelines.

quote: I don't agree with you that the current level of low-intensity conflict will throw us off of our game--the criteria I would use to describe the insurgency as a success.

It slows down the process, and time isn't on our side.

quote: At least 60% of the country is friendlies, even more are borderline hostiles but we have a good chance of making friendly, because it doesn't rely on anything in the Sunni triangle (Mosul, for instance) and it would take a series of monumental screw-ups on our part to change this fact. Don't put this possibility past us, though!

The problem is that they're friendly, in the assumption we're going to make things improve at a fairly rapid pace. Things like delays in interim Iraqi administration, improving standards of living across the board, etc. are important, and to the extent the insurgents draw resources to deal with them, they take away resources from everything else.

I still think we can win this, and do an excellent job, but IMO it will take a much larger commitment of forces, and a much larger commitment of money for rebuilding, etc. And we have to stop screwing around with delaying an Iraqi interim administration.

	06-07-2003 00:24									#25
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The administration is supposed to be in place around the middle of this month. Here's an article on it.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030705_731.html

The Shiites have other agendas. Some pro-US, some wait and see, some pro-Shiite fundamentalist, but it doesn't do them any good to join in the plinking - what would they gain?

Yes, this is true. I guess when I mean "friendly", I mean that most are willing to work with us and not plink our troops. They are not worried about Saddam coming back either. For all they care, the Sunni triangle could burn down--some might even cheer it. With the proper application of money for rebuilding and further organizational help, it just seems like it's on a reasonable course in the South. Most are complaining about security, but they have near 24-hour electricity, which appears to be viewed by the people who live there as a miracle.

The Sunni center is unfortunately the political, economic, industrial and agricultural center of the country, so we have to control it, even moreso than anything else other than the oilfields and pipelines.

I think we should disentangle this. Political center, yes. Industrial center, yes. Agricultural center yes. But economic, no. Even though it might be diversified more than some other ME countries, it is still an oil country. Most things economic revolve around oil. And that's the province of Basra and Kirkuk. You could make the argument that Mosul has some sway over this as well, since they could sabotage the pipelines.

Last edited by DanS on 06-07-2003 at 00:31

	06-07-2003 03:50									#26
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by DanS At least 60% of the country is friendlies, even more are borderline hostiles but we have a good chance of making friendly, because it doesn't rely on anything in the Sunni triangle (Mosul, for instance) and it would take a series of monumental screw-ups on our part to change this fact.

It's only a matter of time until a good part of the shiite population has enough of your occupation regime. Your presence is also an invitation for every nutty fundie to target your troops.

What I wonder again, how many Americans do they have to kill to make you withdraw.

	06-07-2003 04:09									#27
	Got spare money?

Iraqis are already killing collaborators. Will setting up a Vichy government work?

	06-07-2003 04:25									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DanS But economic, no. Even though it might be diversified more than some other ME countries, it is still an oil country.

Herein lies the problem. IF you don't mind a Norway-style socialism, where most people are subsidized off the oil export revenues in a welfare state, then you're right. But how much do you want to bet our good Republican friends want to set that up as the model for their free-market Iraqi democracy?

(Actually, I think it would be a good idea at first)

The oil sector doesn't provide that much employment, so you need to redevelop much of the domestic economy to get people busy and productive (so they're less inclined to plink us) and buying stuff. That will center around the population, so that's your Baghdad and center of the country environs again. The Iraqi redeveloped industrial/commercial base should enhance the direct economic position of the center of the country so you really have two economic poles if you want - the foreign currency earning one, and the employment/domestic economy one. Once you get back the Iraqi aerospace, biotechnology and petrochemical sectors, er, um... Nevermind, oil-based welfare state seems the way to go.

	06-07-2003 04:26									#29
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler What I wonder again, how many Americans do they have to kill to make you withdraw.

We can't withdraw.

	06-07-2003 05:26									#30
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat We can't withdraw.

Without a doubt.

What would you have your additional troops doing over there Mtg?