Iraq Insurgency Larger Than Thought

[brneyedgrl80]

AP: Iraq Insurgency Larger Than Thought

Thu Jul 8, 6:30 PM ET Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Iraq (news - web sites) insurgency is far larger than the 5,000 guerrillas previously thought to be at its core, U.S. military officials say, and it's being led by well-armed Iraqi Sunnis angry at being pushed from power alongside Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).


AP Photo


AP Photo
Slideshow: Iraq





Latest headlines:
· Hostage drama unfolds in Iraq, religious leaders hammer new government
AFP - 4 minutes ago
· Report: CIA Gave False Info on Iraq
AP - 9 minutes ago
· U.S. Intelligence Exaggerated Iraqi Weapons Reports
Reuters - 11 minutes ago
Special Coverage





Although U.S. military analysts disagree over the exact size, dozens of regional cells, often led by tribal sheiks and inspired by Sunni Muslim imams, can call upon part-time fighters to boost forces to as high as 20,000 — an estimate reflected in the insurgency's continued strength after U.S. forces killed as many as 4,000 in April alone.


And some insurgents are highly specialized — one Baghdad cell, for instance, has two leaders, one assassin, and two groups of bomb-makers.


The developing intelligence picture of the insurgency contrasts with the commonly stated view in the Bush administration that the fighting is fueled by foreign warriors intent on creating an Islamic state.


"We're not at the forefront of a jihadist war here," said a U.S. military official in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity.


The official and others told The Associated Press the guerrillas have enough popular support among nationalist Iraqis angered by the presence of U.S. troops that they cannot be militarily defeated.


The military official, who has logged thousands of miles driving around Iraq to meet with insurgents or their representatives, said a skillful Iraqi government could co-opt some of the guerrillas and reconcile with the leaders instead of fighting them.


"I generally like a lot of these guys," he said. "We know who the key people are in all the different cities, and generally how they operate. The problem is getting actionable information so you can either attack them, arrest them or engage them."


Even as Iraqi leaders wrangle over the contentious issue of offering a broad amnesty to guerrilla fighters, the new Iraqi military and intelligence corps have begun gathering and sharing information on the insurgents with the U.S. military, providing a sharper picture of a complex insurgency.


"Nobody knows about Iraqis and all the subtleties in culture, appearance, religion and so forth better than Iraqis themselves," said U.S. Army Lt. Col. Daniel Baggio, a military spokesman at Multinational Corps headquarters in Baghdad. "We're very optimistic about the Iraqis' use of their own human intelligence to help root out these insurgents."

Read more here: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...0708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insurgency&printer=1

 

[Captain_Steel]

one question:

Does this make you happy? Does it further your cause against the war? Is this good news to you?

(well, okay, a few questions.)

 

[NATO AIR]

i'll say this.. it is further proof that not just in the CIA, but in the Defense and State. Dept's, serious reform and restructuring is required, because they have been woefully equipped and/ or utilized in dealing with iraq from the very beginning of the reconstruction of iraq (after saddam's fall). every other day, we're hearing about how they're surprised by, caught unawares by, not ready for, unsure of... etc etc... these people (not the troops, the leaders and middlemen) have been bungling this badly from the beginning, and we've got to see change and improvement.

its nowhere near good for this insurgency to be so large, its not just a challenge for the Coalition, but for the Iraqi gov't. so hopefully we will pull through this, but with the leadership (not bush, i'm talking DOD level guys, rumsfield, etc etc) involved now, it doesn't look very good.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by NATO AIR
i'll say this.. it is further proof that not just in the CIA, but in the Defense and State. Dept's, serious reform and restructuring is required, because they have been woefully equipped and/ or utilized in dealing with iraq from the very beginning of the reconstruction of iraq (after saddam's fall). every other day, we're hearing about how they're surprised by, caught unawares by, not ready for, unsure of... etc etc... these people (not the troops, the leaders and middlemen) have been bungling this badly from the beginning, and we've got to see change and improvement.

its nowhere near good for this insurgency to be so large, its not just a challenge for the Coalition, but for the Iraqi gov't. so hopefully we will pull through this, but with the leadership (not bush, i'm talking DOD level guys, rumsfield, etc etc) involved now, it doesn't look very good.

Who says we have been surprised? Only the media is saying the military is "surprised" about this. From all the reports I have seen from DAY 1 the military and the administration has said that Iraq was NOT going to be easy.

 

[NATO AIR]

that's a generalized statement... i could say life is hard but that doesn't mean i'll know my g/f gets raped, my house burns down, my job goes bankrupt, etc etc

saying they said iraq wasn't going to be easy doesn't excuse them from missing the boat on almost every major development in the insurgency, the terrorist campaign, etc etc

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
Who says we have been surprised? Only the media is saying the military is "surprised" about this. From all the reports I have seen from DAY 1 the military and the administration has said that Iraq was NOT going to be easy.

Generally, when a bomb blows up in front of or under a person, they are surprised. No?

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by NATO AIR
that's a generalized statement...

saying they said iraq wasn't going to be easy doesn't excuse them from missing the boat on almost every major development in the insurgency, the terrorist campaign, etc etc

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8683

 

[krisy]

This is the kind of crap the media loves to engage in in election year. How about the part that they can't be defeated? Of course they can be defeated. That's just what the media likes to do to paint a grim as grim can be picture on things. I also believe there are definitely things that the Pentagon knows that we don't. Maybe they have known this for a while. These are estimates counting on the fact that angry Joe Blows will rise up with the terrorists. If that's the case,the U.S. can open a large can of whoopass whenever they want. The only reason they aren't all dead is because we are trying to spare civilian lives.

 

[NATO AIR]

oh on that note, that little banner in the back.... i so appreciate how the political worms who work for him tried to say the Navy sailors wanted and put that up there... not us, no siree., that was y'all politicians

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by krisy
I also believe there are definitely things that the Pentagon knows that we don't.

Um, yes, I believe that's why we have things like Top Secret clearance.

 

[NATO AIR]

well there have been quite a few things they didn't know cause they wouldn't have been acting so desperate in the past to put down the insurgency, to the point of giving a city (fallujah) to the insurgents just to make it go away

there are other missteps, many in fact, and the fact remains: the troops on the ground have been put in unnecessary danger and hardship while in iraq because of poor leadership from above (not bush, but within the pentagon). very poor policies and very stupid decisions were made that were and are inexcuseable.

 

[krisy]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Um, yes, I believe that's why we have things like Top Secret clearance.

Yea,I am aware of that...you don't have to be a smart a$$:

I was just amking a point. They know a lot that they don't tell us. By the time the media gets info,who knows how long they have allready had it.

Nato,I know there probably were mistakes made,but this is a new age. Bush is the first President that has to deal with this kind of war and terrorism on this level. Because of his balls,the world will know how to take these guys down in the future.
But mostly because of our great men and women doing the dirty work in Iraq and aroud the world.

 

[NATO AIR]

yea that is why i'm not hitting Bush on it, its a DOD issue, not a white house issue (except for maybe one or two errors)

hindsight is 20/20 but competent leadership from DOD is expected at all times, its not an option or a possibility, its a MUST. it hasn't been happening very much in the past 16 months in iraq.

 

[krisy]

I agree,but I think it's been wrong because we haven't been tough enough. We are being too nice.

 

[NATO AIR]

yea we got touchy feely about fallujah and now its the fricking insurgent capital of iraq

same thing with tora bora though, we got worried about casualties and what not, and didn't go through with what we needed to

alas, let's hope the decisions are better the next 16 months eh?

let's just be cool about it and hope they sort it out

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by NATO AIR
yea that is why i'm not hitting Bush on it, its a DOD issue, not a white house issue (except for maybe one or two errors)

hindsight is 20/20 but competent leadership from DOD is expected at all times, its not an option or a possibility, its a MUST. it hasn't been happening very much in the past 16 months in iraq.

Right NATO and the DOD was (it is changing now) mostly made up of personnel that were promoted by Clinton and that commanded under Clinton. We all know how much Clinton neglected the military.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by Captain_Steel
one question:

Does this make you happy? Does it further your cause against the war? Is this good news to you?

(well, okay, a few questions.)

Sorry it took me awhile, I'm not on as much as I used to be.

Well... I wouldn't say this is good news, but I will say that this is something that we knew before we got into the war in the first place. I don't think this is a surprise.

 

[dilloduck]

"We shoulda" is starting to make me sick . Can we get past it or do we need it to bash the current administration ? The point is that this administration decided to attack terrorism . A hell of a lot of people support this decision even though it has not worked out to the satisfaction of the arm-chair generals and talking heads.
A lot still support it knowing full well all the mistakes that have been made. War ain't easy or predictable and Bush never said it would be. Should we have waited until we knew everything and did it perfectly? Libs are afraid of the fact that we got tough on terrorism and fear retaliation . No probelm--there will be more surprises from the terrorists that you can say--WE SHOULDA--about.

What is the liberal plan to counter terrorism. How come it's not out there for critique ? THEY DON'T HAVE ONE AND HOPE IT JUST DISAPPEARS ! When your kid is dead are you gonna say maybe we shoulda listened to Bush?