Iraqi Insurgents Take a Page From the Afghan 'Freedom Fighters'

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/weekinreview/09BEAR.html?ex=1068958800&en=f8ee55939d8061d5&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

As the daily attacks against American forces in Iraq increase in number and sophistication, the Bush administration continues to portray its adversaries as an assortment of die-hard Baathists, criminals, thugs and foreign terrorists, all acting out of desperation.

Certainly, there are Baathists and foreign terrorists operating against the American-led coalition, and their ranks probably include criminals. But the overarching reality is that the American and British forces are facing a resourceful adversary whose game plan may be more fully developed than originally thought.

My own experience in war has largely been on the side of insurgents. I served as the Central Intelligence Agency's quartermaster and political agent to the Afghan resistance against the Soviet occupation from 1986 until the Soviets left in 1989.

From my perspective, the Iraqi resistance has taken a page from a sophisticated insurgency playbook in their confrontations with the American-led coalition.

more

[Frances]

1. Good Article

I am afraid that the author is correct. I think that the insurgents in Iraq do have a plan. I am afraid that the Americans do not. We seem to be as ignorant of Iraqi culture and history as we were of Vietnamese culture and history.

[DUreader]

9. And the 'playbook' was written Right here in the USA

and published in textbook form for Afghan schools

[Emillereid]

2. The last paragraph sums it up nicely--

"There were two stark lessons in the history of the 20th century: no nation that launched a war against another sovereign nation ever won. And every nationalist-based insurgency against a foreign occupation ultimately succeeded."

Bush supposedly majored in history at Yale, but he only earned C's and now he boasts that he doesn't read -- well as the saying goes, those that don't know history are bound to repeat it.

[Lakhim]

3. Heres a war started by US and won

Kosovo and Bosnia were both in the 20th century, and were both started by the US

[Emillereid]

5. I think the author, a former CIA agent, meant the statement

more in terms of an attack, invasion, takeover of a sovereign nation -- one could argue that the Kosovo and Bosnian operations were not so much invasions and takeovers of sovereign nations, but more like military operations (under NATO and secured by the UN) with a more limited goal. Far as I know they're are still part of sovereign nations. It would be interested to know how the author of the piece would view those operations.

[Cha]

8. We weren't "invading" Bosnia to take

it over like bush & Iraq. It's apples and oranges.

I was not following events then but it sounds like we were trying to stop genocide.

[newyawker99]

12. Hi Lakhim!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Cha]

7. That's what we were reading and believing before the

Iraqi Invasion started! And some of us are not college grads!

[renegade000]

11. north vietnam did.

[Mackay]

4. I'd like to agree on principle... but

he is factually wrong about the 20th century nationalist insurgencies always winning out. There are numerous examples of countries which managed to quell any resistance and to effectively rule the previously 'sovereign' nation Take USSR in the eastern european countries such as Czechoslovakia... or China in Tibet...

For a CIA quartermaster, I don't find the analysis in this article to be better than some of the average posts from the well read members of this board.

BTW... Bosnia and Kosovo is NOT an example of what the author is talking about.

[Emillereid]

6. To what extent did these countries develop

nationalist insurgency movements. I know there were riots and people left eastern Europe, but refresh my memory regarding armed resistance movements in Eastern Europe. Besides this author might be taking the long view -- clearly the Soviet Union was unable to hold Eastern Europe.

There a book that recently came out, but I can't remember the name or the author -- I heard him interviewed briefly on Pacifica radio and he contended the same thing that this author does -- that ultimately the people will prevail against aggression. Anyone know the book I'm talking about??

[Mackay]

10. not the author's point

The author's point was about 'sovereign countries being invaded'... he didn't say 'only those countries with insurgency movements'. And almost any country which is invaded has an insurgency movement... but the methods with which it is quashed... and the amount of press the outside world recieves vary from case to case.

The Soviet Union was not unable to hold Eastern Europe... they did it quite well for between 20 to 40 years depending on the country... and the ultimate unravelling had to do with a popular movement in Moscow completely unrelated to the captured territories.

'Ultimately the people will prevail against aggression..." I'd like to believe that. The palestinians seem to be doing their best... but unfortunately, it looks like aggression seems to be unflinching in that case.

[htuttle]

13. There are a lot of determining factors, but mostly political ones

How supportive of the resistance is the general population? (a critical factor)

How similar are the occupier's culture, and that of the culture occupied, and what relationship do they have? (will have a bearing on the previous point)

What are living conditions like? (bearing on point 1)

Etc...

You probably have to measure progress against a potentially long time scale. The Irish resistance fought for hundreds of years before the Irish Republic was formed. Waves of violence came and went, but it was never peaceful for long during that time.

Finally, I don't think many historical examples (from before the 20th century) are relevant anymore, since the advent of modern weaponry (in particular, machine guns and RPG-like weapons) has disproportionally magnified the power of a small group in relation to a large army. The Philippine uprising is one example -- the resistance there didn't have much more than swords and a few flintlock rifles. If they had had access to modern weapons, I think it would have turned out differently (even given the modern weapons that MacArthur would have had available today).