Two interesting bits of news. First is from Zeyad, posting at Healing Iraq, who speculates that the insurgents are mostly Ba'athists operating under the guise of Zarqawi's terrorist group. ...if Zarqawi's group can set up a checkpoint of at least 15-20 armed men in a distant area on the Iranian border (Mandali-Badrah), which is not usually their traditional area of operations, to capture some 50 trained Iraqi soldiers, to tie them up and execute them one by one, to dispose of their corpses in such a way and to retreat unscathed, then something is seriously wrong. It would indicate that Zarqawi's network is getting stronger and bolder despite the US reports of daily bombings against Zarqawi's hideouts.
I find it dubious because the tactics are not those of Zarqawi or foreign terrorists. I have reason to believe that this was the work of former Iraqi security forces. These remain the only organised groups in Iraq today with the required experience and precision to carry out such an operation. This was completely planned beforehand.
[...]
The Arab media persists in labelling these criminal elements as freedom fighters in a legitimate conflict with an occupying force, and that this resistance is nationwide, spontaneous and widely supported by the Iraqi people as an immediate result of US actions in postwar Iraq. The media chooses to ignore the fact that the main victim of this resistance is the Iraqi people itself, and that only a tiny fraction of attacks are now directed at occupation forces. This resistance realises that if free elections supervised by the UN and the international community take place in January 2005 and if a legitimate representative government assumes power in the country then the resistance would have to cease to exist.Zeyad's argument is buttressed by this post by Robin Burk at Winds of Change who tells of Humalia Akrawy. She is a 23 year old Kurdish-Iraqi woman whose brother was murdered by Saddam's thugs and whose sister was murdered by Ba'athists who mistaking the sister for Humalia, pumped 60 AK47 bullets into her. Humalia became a translator for the 101st Airborne, and in the face of continuing death threats, she agreed to be translator for the 101st commanding officer, Lieutenant General Petraeus.
She described her family's sufferings under Saddam and the guilt she felt when her sister was killed in an attack intended for her. It was her father who told her that if she was willing, she should go back to her job and show the terrorists (possibly Ansar al-Islam) that they had not and could not win through such violence. So with his support she did just that.
[...]
Her estimates: 95% of Iraqis are happy with the removal of Saddam and with the changes that are begining to happen in Iraq. 3-4% are afraid of the changes because they just want peace and quiet. 1%, mostly ex-Ba'athists, opposed , with perhaps 9000-13,000 or so Iraqis actively involved in the insurgency.
Syrians and Iranians make up most of the foreign fighters. Iraqis can identify them by accents, among other things. Syria and Iran clearly do not want Iraq to be a success because "they know they will be next - not necessarily with an invasion but certainly their people will demand democracy if Iraqis demonstrate it is possible."In the opinions of these two Iraqis, ex-Ba'athists are behind the insurgency. They're hopeful and optimistic about the future of Iraq, and grateful for the chance at freedom. Both are clearly at risk for their outspoken support of American efforts to plant the seeds of democracy.
But on several occasions Edwards has said stability is the best we can hope for in Iraq. To the Kerry-Edwards team, Iraqis are not capable of democratic self government. From the ever evolving Kerry-Edwards positions - voting for the 87 billion before voting against it, voting in support of regime change in Iraq then calling it the wrong war at the wrong time - the only certainty we have is that Kerry and Edwards are willing to say whatever might at a given moment appear to help their election chances. Their sloppy and stupid campaigning incites the ex Ba'athists to wage a campaign of terror in support of a Kerry-Edwards victory. A victory for the ex Ba'athists would fulfill the Kerry-Edwards preference for stability, and a victory for Kerry-Edwards represents the best chance for a return of Ba'athist power. The Ba'athists know it.
Comments