Terrorism and Insurgency

[lrd]

Originally posted by Valhal
Do you think there might be more than one faction at play here?

From an Army officer in Iraq:
IRAQ NOW ...... Media Analysis with a Sense of Insurgency
http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2004_02_...92717209239509

The Danger of "Gotcha" Journalism

Here's an example of a reporter jumping on a chance to be 'snarky' but without quite understanding his beat.

The Associated Press notes that US soldiers are still getting killed with alarming regularity in Iraq, despite the recent capture of Saddam.

He then inserts two 'gotcha' quotes from two division commanders:

Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, told reporters on Jan. 6 that ``we've turned the corner'' in the counterinsurgency effort in his area of responsibility, the western part of Iraq, which includes a part of the so-called Sunni Triangle west of Baghdad.

The number of attacks on his forces had declined by almost 60 percent in the past month, he said then.

Two weeks later, Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, said, ``The former regime elements we've been combating have been brought to their knees.'' His troops operate in an area north of Baghdad that includes Tikrit, a focus of anti-U.S. violence.

But in fact, many of the fatal attacks against U.S. forces in January were in Swannack's and Odierno's areas.

What the reporter is missing is that both Generals can still be quite correct, and yet attacks on Americans can still continue to increase.

The answer lies in understanding that there is not just one insurgency, but several.

MG Odierno is right--the pro-Baathist, former regime loyalist guerrilla apparatus has been defeated. It's been crushed. When Saddam was captured, all those losers started singing like nightingales, and much of what was left of the former regime elements were rolled up within a month.

Those are not the guys giving us the trouble any more.

The real danger to U.S. troops now is from the 'foreign fighters,' the mujahedeen, the Ansar Al Islam types, and the Al Qaeda franchisees.

Running parallel to this, there is a third layer of insurgency--which is not a huge danger to U.S. troops, but a huge danger to the Iraqi people: the internecine warfare between Sunnis and Shias, and between Kurds and Turkomen.

And beneath this, there is a fourth insurgency: the vendettas among the rival clans, even within the larger ethnic groups.

MG Swannack was right. We have turned a corner. We are focusing on an entirely different kind of insurgent, now. The foreign fighter-dominated jihadist terrorist cell is a very different animal from the former regime loyalist. Their tactics may be similar at times, but the channels through which they receive support --hence their set of critical vulnerabilities--are totally different. They are financed differently, they are armed differently, they are motivated differently, they are recruited differently. They pray differently, they communicate differently, and have an entirely different set motivations.

They even talk differently. A native Iraqi can hear a Saudi or Jordanian or Syrian accent the same way Americans can tell a southerner from a New Yorker.

Which means our sources of information must become different. Our public relations focus becomes different. Our intelligence gathering means and methods must change, in order to focus on the emerging threat.

Odierno was right. Swannack was right.

The AP reporter was so focused on setting up the 'gotcha quotes,' and that he missed another, far deeper and more engaging story, right under his nose.

[Valhal]

Thank you IRD for the great link.
Mark

[Airbornelawyer]

There is another element which Van Steenwyk does not mention, which is the activities of criminal gangs and syndicates, many of which are Ba'athists/former Ba'athists and many of whom got rich through smuggling and bribery related to the Oil-for-Food Program and other schemes.

Also, the foreign elements are in some cases not a separate group, but form their own alliances. Some are Islamists looking for a jihad to fight and Americans to kill, some are adventurers and Arab nationalists, some are non-Iraqi Ba'athists who came to join their fellow partisans, and some are ethnic/regional factionalists (such as Iranian Arab Shi'ites and Turks). There is obviously some overlap in some of these categories, but what we also see are some foreign fighters who are a distinct group, and some who are allied with the other groups previously identified.

[lrd]

Valhal -- You're welcome. I wasn't sure if his outline covered everything; AL's post helps to fill it out.

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
There is another element which Van Steenwyk does not mention, which is the activities of criminal gangs and syndicates, many of which are Ba'athists/former Ba'athists and many of whom got rich through smuggling and bribery related to the Oil-for-Food Program and other schemes.

Does this need to be dealt with as a law enforcement issue?

Also, the foreign elements are in some cases not a separate group, but form their own alliances. Some are Islamists looking for a jihad to fight and Americans to kill, some are adventurers and Arab nationalists, some are non-Iraqi Ba'athists who came to join their fellow partisans, and some are ethnic/regional factionalists (such as Iranian Arab Shi'ites and Turks). There is obviously some overlap in some of these categories, but what we also see are some foreign fighters who are a distinct group, and some who are allied with the other groups previously identified.

Are they different from foreign fighers involved in past wars?

[Sacamuelas]

NDD-
Earlier you wrote:

"....the FARC general membership has very little in common with Marulanda. Their recruiting base for middle management comes from the national universities."

I would like to hear why you think the universities serve as such fertile ground for the FARC.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Young, pissed off, feeling the need to be radically active. Same reason the communists and others recruit in universities all over the world.

[Sacamuelas]

I agree, but why? I am interested to hear opinions as to why this is the group so ripe for revolutionary ideals.

In my recent reading, a generalized classification was made that most LATAM countries are still fashioned in a modified 16th century two-class social system. Even with a recently emerging economic "middle class", this third group has tended to show little collectiveness as a politically moderate social class and actually tended to be more politically conservative than the aristocrat class. The newly formed economic middle class tends to despise the lower class(just like the upper class) and isolate themselves from them even though they themselves just came from that background. This serves to further perpetuate the distinction and animosity between the two classes (wealthy/peasant). Therefore, even though there has been some economic creation of a middle class, there is no real middle class "society" with its moderation, virtues, political pragmatism, and democratic social and political ideas. It leaves the country in what K. Silvert has called a "conflict society". No safe middle of the road society, just a constant on-again, off-again class warfare primed territory(unstable).

As to why they recruit in the Universities:
Obviously, social mobility/interaction has been very restricted between the classes in a system like this. In the last few decades, new avenues for social advancement have begun to open up. University and technical training both provide the lower class ways for mobility within in the social scale. Therefore, the people already looking for social change/struggling against the current barriers are frequently found in the Universities. These are the people that are already self-motivated and taking personal action to alter the existing "social status quo" for themselves and their loved ones.... IMO, it wouldn't take much to alter their perceptions to that of a revolutionary perspective to end the class struggle once and for all.

That is one of the reasons I think it is fertile ground. Does that make any sense to you? If not, I will retry on more sleep tomorrow. This stuff intriques me, yet I admit I am very ignorant on the issues.

[Sacamuelas]

Must have confused everyone so much with my jibberish, their so crossed up they can't even tell me I am full of crap.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
Must have confused everyone so much with my jibberish, their so crossed up they can't even tell me I am full of crap.

Yep. LOL

[NousDefionsDoc]

No, I'll be back. I'm thinking about this still.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Ok. I disagree with the concept as stated of the middle class. I also disagree that it is newly formed. So here's my .02 pesos.

What you have are the very poor, the very rich, and everybody else. I don't know what the percentages are and they very from country to country. This is not new and I would bet, when looked at objectively, most people fall in the "everybody else" or what could be considered middle class in this place, at this time, with these people.

Now to me, a big problem in LATAM is urbanization. Its one thing to be broke in the rural areas, its another thing entirely to be broke in the urban areas. The very concept of broke is different. To me, being broke is having electricity, water and telephone shut off for failure to pay. And no food. A campesino may not care that much if his one light bulb doesn't work, he gets his water from a well and the phone is at the post office. Plus, he can live for a month on yucca and rice.

With urbanization, the relative lack of wealth is much more noticeable. You see street people begging in front of the mansion. Since its easier to see, it offends people more. It facilitates them protesting about it. It facilitates the studies on the inequalities as a theme for a thesis. The reasons for urbanization are varied - in Colombia, it is mostly displacement to escape the violence. In many others it is economically driven. People know more about what is going on - technology, etc., and they want their share. So they move to town thinking that's the way to get it.

Bogota was designed and has infrastructure, by my eye, for about 2-3 million people. It has a rough population of 8 million. Quito, Caracas, Rio, etc. have the same problem. So you have an overcrowded prison with all the associated conflicts and issues. Plus, they spend everything they have to get there. When it doesn't work, they have no way to leave. In comes the criminal element to pray on them, exacerbating the situation, followed by the political element to recruit them.

In Colombia, there is a big problem with absentee landowners. They can't run the risk of living and working on the farms because of the violence. So they let them go to seed. What benefits they provided to the campesino class are erased, as the campesinos don't have the education level to operate the farms at a level to be competitive in today's world market. So the campesinos hate the landowners who are never there because they can't be. And the Gs are whispering in their ears the whole time.

I do agree that a class tends to shy away from accepting a "lower" class. Human nature - one does not wish to be reminded of where "There but for the Grace of God..." Doesn't the same thing happen in the US? You been hangin' out with donald trump lately? I don't think there is a a society that isn't in conflict. Everybody is always trying to get what the next group has.

Social mobility - given what we have above, where are they going to move to? If they become land owners, they will face the same problems the current land owners do and have to move to the city to survive. In the city, if you have infrastructure for 3MM, doesn't it follow that there will only be opportunities for 3MM? Where do we get jobs for the other 5MM that shouldn't be there in the first place? So mobility in this case is not restricted by lack of training, its restricted by lack of opportunity. They are competing with 5MM others just as qualified for 3MM jobs. And they are not competing nation-wide, because the nation is shrinking due to the violence or urbanization. 99% of the population lives on 1% of the land (I made those numbers up). In all these countries, there are vast areas uninhabited - violence, lack of infrastructure, "Save the Rainforest", etc. And the population is growing by leaps and bounds, not least due to the Catholic stance on birth control.

Its like Ethopia - you can be the best farmer in the world, but if it doesn't rain, its better to go into the UHaul rental business.

I agree to an extent about the recruiting in the universities. What you have are mostly the middle class (its not that hard to go). They see that they will still have a struggle when they graduate, they are offended by the poverty they see (without really knowing why it is that way). They are idealistic, like all young people. They are away from home for the first time. Then they listen to professional academics all day, many of them communists, tell them it is the fault of the US, the puppet government, the IMF, capitalism, whatever. Then add in the romance - Che, will I get to wear a beret, unite! Professional agitators giving them incentive. Plus, most universities are off limits to police and the military except under martial law, so there's no real fear of punishment. Its rather like Jane F in the '60s. She knew, no matter what she did, nobody was going to really screw with her. Her daddy was an icon, the movement had some popular support, especially among academics, judges, lawyers, etc. She was a young, famous, pretty actress. Where's the risk? Old, poor, ugly campesinos go to jail, not people like her.

At the end of the day, most of them don't even know why things are the way they are. And I don't think they really care. They rebel becuase they are at a rebellious age, and others take advantage of that to steer them in a given direction.

There are poor people! Get your beret and AK and take to the hills!

Its really fun to talk to them when they can't get away. I have a niece, young, pretty. Boys like this used to come around like hounds. So I would sit them down and make them voice the whys and wherefores of their political philosophies. Make them tell me who the guy on the T Shirt was. Yes, some of them had Che T Shirts. LOL. They would do really well, regurgitating the standard doctrine, until we got past the part they had memorized. Very disconcerting to have a gringo tell you more about your country's history than you know.

My wife studied psychology. She used to bring her study group home. They once picked terrorism as a topic for a dissertation and invited me to participate. LOL. Great days those were.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Now you need to get Jimbo to tell you about liberation theology. LOL

[Sacamuelas]

I'm collecting my thoughts (aka researching my___ off on Colombia's specifics ). As the governator sais... " I'll be back"

[NousDefionsDoc]

Colombia is fairly easy to figure out. The violence dispaces the campesino, who overloads the system. Get rid of the violence and put the campesino back in the campo and a lot of it goes away. Of course you may have to force the campesinos back to the campo at gunpoint, especially the young ones. Which would cause another round.

[Sacamuelas]

That is where I disagree. I've had company all afternoon and can't get to my computer/study long enough to write it out. I will post later tonight why I disagree with that solving the problems.