America and Britain at WAR? An Article of War perhaps or JUST a Difference of Opinion?

Here is an article the like of you don't see here in the USA. For a start it would be treason to write the original article and also the answering blogs would be much more savage and personally insulting. It is however, very useful to hear the varying attitudes and standpoints of several individuals from either side of the pond. We seem closer to all out war between us than back at the time of the Revolution? Here is the article from an English Newspaper:

Eventually, the US will have to negotiate its way out

Expectations of an early withdrawal from Iraq are premature. Only broader resistance is likely to break the American grip

Whatever else they might disagree about; Iraqis, Americans and Britons have something crucial in common: large majorities in all three countries oppose the occupation of Iraq by US and British troops and want them brought home. Recognition that the war has been a political and human catastrophe is now so settled that politicians are obliged to pay at least lip service to the pervasive mood for withdrawal. Gordon Brown's studiedly suggestive remarks on the White House lawn about plans to move British troops from "combat to overwatch" in Basra, where two more British soldiers have been killed this week, were clearly aimed at anti-war opinion in Britain.

Meanwhile, speculation about scenarios for withdrawal is rampant in Washington and Iraq itself. But that doesn't mean it's about to happen - and there's a danger that pressure in the US and Britain to end the occupation could be relaxed in anticipation of a full-scale pullout that is still not seriously on the cards. After all, Richard Nixon was elected president in 1968 on a promise to end the Vietnam War and American troops were still there five years later.

What is clear is that the US has already suffered a strategic defeat in Iraq. A flagrant act of aggression intended to be a demonstration of untrammeled US imperial power to impose its will on the heart of the oil-producing Arab and Muslim world has instead demonstrated a fatal vulnerability to "asymmetric warfare". It's also true that, as a senior US intelligence officer told the Washington Post this week, "the British have basically been defeated in the south". Far from keeping rival militia from each other's throats, over 80% of violent attacks in the area are directed against British troops.

But, given the political embarrassment a British pullout would represent for the Bush administration in Washington, it's hard to imagine Brown's government ordering a comprehensive withdrawal any time soon. So British soldiers will have to expect to go on paying Tony Blair's blood price for the much vaunted special relationship.

Despite the congressional bluster, a better guide to US intentions was given by the defense secretary, Robert Gates, a couple of months back, when he declared that the US was looking for a "long and enduring presence" in Iraq - reflected in plans to consolidate 14 "enduring bases" across the country. Given the huge US strategic interest in Iraq and the region, and its determination to halt the spread of Iranian influence, that seems unlikely to change in the event of a Democratic presidential victory in 2008. In other words, the price of staying in Iraq will have to rise still further if the US is going to be forced out and Iraq regains its independence.

Inside Iraq, that price can only be exacted by increased resistance. More than any other single factor, it has been the war of attrition waged by Iraq's armed resistance - or insurgency as it is usually described in the western media - that has successfully challenged the world's most powerful army and driven the demand for withdrawal to the top of the political agenda in Washington. Two years ago the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, insisted the insurgency was in its "last throes". But while the outside world has increasingly focused on al-Qaeda-style atrocities against civilians and sectarian killings, the guerrilla war against the occupation forces has continued to escalate. There are now over 5,000 attacks a month, a more than 20-fold increase on four years ago, and the US and British death toll is rising. Opinion polls show there is majority support for armed resistance across Iraq; in Sunni areas it is overwhelming.

The mainstream resistance movement has often been dismissed in the US and Britain as politically incoherent, obscurantist or tarred with the brush of al-Qaeda (which accounts for a minority of attacks, though perhaps a majority of suicide bombings). That has been made easier as it operated underground, communicating mainly through the internet or occasional statements to the Arabic media. Now that is changing. Last month, I interviewed leaders of three Sunni-based Islamist and nationalist-leaning resistance groups which are joining four others to launch a political front in advance of an expected American withdrawal. The recent cross-party Iraq Commission report cites four of the seven as among the "four or five main groups" the insurgency has now consolidated around. All have signed up to an anti-sectarian, anti-al-Qaeda platform, oppose attacks on civilians, and call for negotiated withdrawal and free elections.

The greatest danger to both the resistance and the wider campaign to end the occupation remains the Sunni-Shia split, fostered since the invasion in classic divide-and-rule mode. Throughout the occupation, armed resistance has been concentrated in mainly Sunni Arab areas. Whenever it has spread to the Shia population - as it did in 2004, when Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army fought the Americans - the potentially decisive threat to US control from a genuinely nationwide resistance movement has become clear. Now armed resistance by the Mahdi army has re-emerged, against the British in Basra and the Americans in Baghdad, where the US lieutenant general Raymond Odierno has claimed that most attacks during July were by Shia fighters.

But while acutely aware of the need to make common cause with Shia groups and the danger of the breakup of the country, the new Sunni-based resistance front refuses to have anything to do with the Mahdi army because of its role in sectarian killings and on-off participation in the floundering US-sponsored government. Meanwhile, the US is seeking to draw some on the margins of the Sunni-based resistance into the orbit of its anti-Iranian, anti-Shia regional alliance.

The history of anti-colonial and anti-occupation resistance campaigns shows that success has almost always depended on broad-based national movements. But the embryonic resistance front has got to be a positive development if it holds together. Not only could the creation of an alliance with a common program help open up cooperation with Shia anti-occupation forces now, but if there is going to be a stable post-occupation settlement in Iraq, that will have to include all those with genuine support on the ground. Sooner or later, the Americans are going to have to negotiate with these groups.

Comments Via Blog:

keshi

We've been talking about this illegal war for years and talk has produced nothing, what will drive the Americans out is a boycott of their products. So if you don't approve of this war then don't buy their goods and services, their greed for money will force Bush out.

ceomrRLouis

FIXING IRAQ'S EGREGIOUS & UNCONSCIONABLE PROBLEMS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL

Abandoning Iraq would only confirm Islamic peoples' assertions of the developed world being consumed with 'self' & greed-motivated foreign policies! Iraq's disastrous 'occupation' needs to be 'done right'- not irresponsibly abandoned. The Allied occupation of defeated Germany & Japan, after WW II, lasted much longer than Iraq's so far.

The main differences between Japan's1945-'52 occupation & Iraq '03-'07 is that the occupiers of Japan went in knowing they needed to establish a functional democratic governance model, & they believed that establishing democracy involved facilitating positive change IN ALL AREAS OF JAPANESE LIFE + were prepared to provide for many years- the huge levels of resources required for this:

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/eacp/japanworks/japan/japanworkbook/modernhist/occupation.html

In Iraq, unfortunately, it appears that occupation decision-makers believed- or hoped- that a human-rights-based democratic-governance-model would just fall into place on its own... without realistic levels of resources- or detailed planning- provided by the occupiers & without years of enforced positive changes in all areas of Iraqi life.

Worse, there was no overt recognition that successful democratization would necessitate a prolonged, extensive occupier presence. Why prolonged & extensive? Because setting loose the freedoms of any people- inclined to democracy or not- who have for decades been subjugated to the whims & abuses of a barbaric dictator & his accomplices can only result in an unprincipled, often greedy grab for power by some of those previously subjugated.

To avoid this & the chaos resulting, the INSTITUTION OF A TEMPORARY NATIONAL CONSTITUTION with a boilerplate set of secular laws; articulated human-rights; & national-cohesion-mandating clauses was necessary + needed to be held-in-place (for years) while Iraqi society became acclimatized to their new democratic environment & the country as a whole developed "DEMOCRATIC INERTIA".

This would have mandated adequate (IE: massive) levels of troops/reconstruction experts-> numbers large enough to maintain peace while facilitating the establishment of new, fully-enfranchised civic, provincial & national governments & their infrastructures; as well as conducting a national census & setting up functional social services delivery structures for vital basics such as health, education, sewers, electricity & water delivery.

Occupier resources required for the above are far more than the USA, UK & allies could comfortably commit to- after the refusal of major powers such as France, Russia & Germany to take part.

Now, in 2007, the melt-down of an inadequately resourced, insufficiently planned occupation of Iraq is in full swing- with far reaching egregious results... potentially effecting not only the innocent citizenry of Iraq & countries of its region, but also- disastrously- the wider world.

What is needed?? An acknowledgment by the developed world (esp the G8 & Nato) that:

The unconscionable problems in Iraq are of direct concern to all & are of such a serious nature that coordinated, expensive intervention is warranted;

fixing Iraq' requires fixing Iraq's region's most destructive & urgent problems- no matter what the cost

in ego's or $$;

countries neighboring Iraq need to be brought into strategic cooperation with its occupiers.

To achieve strategic cooperation, the occupiers' 'deputizing' Iran &/or Syria is unrealistic & likely unworkable.

But, neutralizing these pivotal, influential countries' decades-old enmity & hostility towards the USA/allies is vital.

How? Led by the UK, the developed world ought to:

offer Iran the 2012 Olympics, with guaranties of significant logistical & financial support. Other states in the region could participate, with a regional Olympic games an objective;

offer both Iran (& N Korea) the rights to be exclusive locations for the International Thermonuclear Energy Research project ( http://www.iter.org ). This would in effect call-their-bluff about needing secretive nuclear technology development programs. The ITER project is 'international' by design & nature, thereby enabling competent oversight-> precluding misuse of the projects resources.

Additionally, offer to pay for & partner-in-the-building-of significant infrastructure for (N Korea, & possibly) Iran, of a type that will instill national-prestige, as well as facilitating an improved connectedness- both physical & psychological- to the outside world.

Offering the ITER project & the 2012 Olympics + committing to pay-for & partner in building infrastructure would go a long way to eliminating these countries' (+ Islam nations/people's) perceptions of threat-> removing motivations for

nuclear weapons & long-range missile programs &/or counterproductively interfering in Iraq.

Roderick V.Louis

whereisthelight

Negotiate? My government does not know the meaning of the word, is not able to pronounce the word and stumbles over the attempt to spell the word. How about starting with some mea culpas?

janye

The US troops will not leave Iraq until President Bush leaves

office. He believes that his mission in life is to make Iraq

a "democracy". He has no understanding of Iraq, her people,

her history, her politics. He seems to consider "democracy for Iraq" his life assignment from the heavely father.

I just hope that the US army holds up until Bush is out of

office. I hope our country holds up until then. I shudder

to think how much damage Bush can do before a new president

takes office in 2009.

Mujokan

I can't see Sunnis and Shiites working together in the foreseeable future. When the Americans do leave, they'll have even less in common than they do now - and presumably Al Qaeda will then turn all its attention towards the Shiites.

There is simply not the will to develop mechanisms that will allow trust between the two groups. In the absence of trust, the rational option for both is to protect themselves - hence the ethnic cleansing we see.

To allow trust, there need to be clear rules for control of resources like land and oil (especially oil, which is obviously the most important thing in the national economy). There need to be mechanisms like South Africa's truth and reconciliation process. There needs to be third-party help to allow the two groups to engage in diplomacy and negotiation.

Who am I going to blame for this? The Bush Administration, of course! Especially: the lack of postwar planning, the disbanding of the Army and botched "deBaathification" program, the ill-thought-out and ad hoc formation of the parliament and constitution, which entrenched ethnic divisions, and the terrible oil law, which has as its aim the privatization of the oil industry rather than the fair distribution of revenues.

The problem is that they want too much control themselves, and aren't interested in setting up an independent Iraq where everyone has a voice. They are too disconnected from reality to realize that they *can't* actually control everything. And they can't learn from their mistakes.

The pattern goes: the Americans want to have control over something (the government, the oil industry, etc.). This is nearly or completely impossible. They try to gain control, putting in a fraction of the minimum effort required. Control slips from their grasp. Then they change horses in mid-stream, trying some compromise policy developed in a rush. The final outcome is that any chance for negotiation and trust between the rival Iraqi groups involved is completely lost. This pattern has occurred over and over again in the last four years. Witness "the surge", when the *finally* brought in a counter-insurgency expert (Petraeus) who understands that counter-insurgency is 80% politics.

Probably someone will haul me up for blaming the Americans and not the actual people doing the ethnic cleansing. But (excluding Al Qaeda, who are crazy death-obsessed fanatics) the groups have little choice, because there are no mechanisms that allow trust. When you've got say just two parties negotiating, giving trust without guarantees can be an effective strategy - but in this case the groups are unable to negotiate because they are too fragmented, and don't have leadership that can speak for everyone. It's impossible to even negotiate a ceasefire (except for homogeneous groups like the Mahdi Army) because we're talking about small intermingled heterogeneous populations.

The Bush Administration just doesn't get it - witness the oil law. That's why there is going to be a lot of blood-letting once they do leave. When the different groups have each claimed a resource base by force of arms, we'll see the possibility of negotiation. And it is the invaders who will bear the greater part of the responsibility for the slaughter, because of their incompetence, and inability to stop seeking control themselves rather than allow Iraqis to control Iraq.

Mujokan

So on the topic of the article, my point is that the author is mistaken - if the Sunnis and Shiites were able to make common cause and create a national resistance movement, Iraq would already be fixed. It isn't going to happen.

SmartwebmasterOrg

"Iraqis, Americans and Britons have something crucial in common: large majorities in all three countries oppose the occupation of Iraq by US and British troops". Unfortunately, only but Iraqis are suffering as the result of the occupation.

So it's quite easy to feel sorry for the Iraqis while eating greasy hamburgers or drinking a few pints: "opposing" the occupation of Iraq requiers much more to be done to honestly use this word; otherwise "disagree with" instead of "oppose" should be more appropriate.

Britain has two true heroes by now; Margaret Jones and Paul Milling. But it's so sad a psycho Yankee could murder John Lennon when no one has made such a move or given a try in dealing with the satanic voices of America, like that of Bill O'Reilly for example.

Anyway, thanks to Seumas Milne for his report and to The Guardian for showing it.

ThermopylaeRedux

""the British have basically been defeated in the south". Far from keeping rival militia from each other's throats, over 80% of violent attacks in the area are directed against British troops."

we can now compare the approaches of the british in basra and that of the us marines in anbar.

the british army ignominously defeated; the US marines triumphant.

yet there was a time not a year ago when the british crowed that the US aproach couldnt work: it was too militaristic. one needed, they lectured with all the euroarrogance of failed imperialism, that one needed a velvet touch.

so what happened to the lecturers?

with barbarians, one does not mollycoddle. one does not negotiate. one does not appeal to a nonexistant reasoning capability.

once upon a time, the british army understood this. in 1898, the british army, outnumbered three to one, annhilated 50,000 islamic fundamentalists at Omdurman.

a century passed before islomobarbarism was to threaten the civilized world.

and this century later, the US marines annhilated their enemies in Anbar so that the noncombatants there could live in a measure of peace, and so might citizens in the

West.

but today's british army failed, and as a result the noncombatants in Basra are now sentanced to a slow death by anarchy, criminality, islamointolerance and all manner of barbarism.

there was a time when britain understood this. there was a time when britain understood that to not extirpate barbarism was to sentance civilization to to a sordid end.

there was a time when britain was great.

flatulentfrank

What is clear is that the US has already suffered a strategic defeat in Iraq.'

After reading that clearly false statement I went to another article.

jname

I hosted friends from Kurdistan a week ago they could not understand why we still in Sunni and Shia territories of Iraq. They were absolutely convinced that US Army should move in to Kurdistan and let Sunnis and Shia deal with each-other. I support a rapid withdraw after Sunnis and Shias had enough of each-other then we can comeback.

cunningstunts

Themopylaeredux The US marines are hardly triumphant in Anbar. They have desperatley sought to arm insurgents who were slaughtering them, (and some still are by the way) in the hope that they will fight off al queda terrorists. Smacks of desperation and has nothing to do with their failed combat operations which caused nothing but trouble. Basra is not perfect by any strech of the imagination but its always been better than Anbar and better handled.

British troops still carry out combat operations and kill many militia when they have to or feel the threat. There is nothing more the British can do in Basra. They are not there to run the place for the Iraquis. Its up to the Iraquis now. The Brits understand this from all their experience. We are not there to conquer. Some Americans are trying to blame Britain for their own falures in Iraq. Iraq is a US failure pure and simple. Nothing great about that either.

Jiri

August 9, 2007 7:38 AM

We have an expression that sums up this situation:

First (s)he would not listen,

Then (s)he didn't know how

The tiger starts to drag him off

(S)he starts to scream

I hope it is not lost in translation.

jawbone

Redux; employing the barbaric methods of the US forces it is not surprising they have temporary 'success".

raphaelg

Sorry, what that you said?

Divide and rule tactics?

You mean U.S. encouraged Mahdi Army by first shutting down their newspaper and then attacking them wherever they found them?

or do you mean by flattening towns all over Anbar province in the search for foreign born Sunni fighters (like the several hundred Brits who we've all been assured by their bragadoccio filled brothers who attend radical mosques around the country are waging jihad there) and then withdrawing to allow them to breed among the resentful people whose homes have been wrecked?

So that was all part of a cunning plan to get them to fight each other rather than uniting them against the U.S.? and make it impossible to rehabilitate the oil fields which might bring some cash back to the U.S.

What a stupendously Machiavellian plan ... and only someone with Seumas's analytic ability could have deduced it.

The U.S. won't negotiate (with whom would it negotiate?) although it will eventually withdraw, sure as shooting. In the meantime those who will suffer most in the years it takes for that to happen will be the Iraqis themselves. since ten times more Iraqis are dying than American troops while the civil war rages.

Thanks, Seumas, for "thinking" of their welfare.

Garshin

Mujokan

It's quite the opposite, Thermopylae. You may dream of heroic battles, but in Iraq the problem was counter-insurgency. Unfortunately the only people who knew anything about that were the US Special Forces, and the British, thanks to their experience in Northern Ireland and the Malaya Emergency.

The regular military in the US threw out their counter-insurgency manual after Vietnam, because they decided they'd never fight that kind of war again. When the smartest military thinkers finally got past the Rumsfeld wall of idiocy, they put together a new handbook, "United States Army and United States Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual FMFM 3-24".

The person who spearheaded this effort? Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who has since been promoted to the post of coalition commander in Iraq.

Some points from the first chapter: "The More You Protect Your Force, The Less Secure You Are" "The More Force Used, The Less Effective It Is" "Sometimes Doing Nothing Is The Best Reaction" "The Best Weapons For Counterinsurgency Do Not Shoot" "Tactical Success Guarantees Nothing"

The British couldn't hold things together all by themselves forever. Unfortunately the initial American strategy of overwhelming force, indiscriminate arrests, torture, refusal to engage with popular leaders, and sitting in forward operating bases like hermits, got things to the point where the British efforts were overwhelmed.

In fact, the strategy you endorse is one of the major reasons the insurgency is so bad in Iraq. Perhaps you are one of those who think most insurgents are Al Qaeda? But in fact most insurgents are not "barbarians" (which is a very fitting description for Al Qaeda) but rather ordinary Iraqis, the people we are supposedly there to help.

The New Yorker had a good article on this topic over a year ago, focusing on the exploits of Col. H.R. McMaster, head of the 3rd Armored Cavalry.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/10/060410fa_fact2

What we need is not Thermopylae redux but Lawrence of Arabia redux. Lawrence is quoted approvingly by Petraeus in his Military Review article from last year. "Do not try to do too much with your own hands." http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume4/april_2006/4_06_2.html

stevejones123

"the US marines triumphant."----

Tell me another one, tell me another one, do. All this proves is that British newspapers are a tad less dishonest than American ones.

namechanger

"The massive new embassy, being built on the banks of the Tigris River, is designed to be entirely self-sufficient and won't be dependent on Iraq's unreliable public utilities.

The 104-acre complex -- the size of about 80 football fields -- will include two office buildings, one of them designed for future use as a school, six apartment buildings, a gym, a pool, a food court and its own power generation and water-treatment plants. The average Baghdad home has electricity only four hours a day, according to Bowen's office.

The current U.S. Embassy in Iraq has nearly 1,000 Americans working there, more than at any other U.S. embassy."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-04-19-us-embassy_x.htm

What's this for if they are thinking of pulling out? They may pull out visible US soldiers, but mercenaries and covert operators aren't going anywhere. Iraq wil be in the clutches of the US for many year yet, at least until the oil runs out. To claim otherwise is naive or marks out any author pushing this lie as a disinformation agent.

BoiledBeefNCarrots

Thermopylae, thanks for the pep talk on the Euro arrogance and how the "British have been defeated in the south"

Kindly bear in mind that it's a US intelligence official who is making that statement. Why is he making it? Well, quite probably to provoke a reaction out of the Brits. The ideologues within the US will no doubt want to lay the ground in preparation for the drawing down of UK troops by trying to claim some sort of lack of resolve or even cowardice.

We shouldn't take any notice of them, because the UK, for all its mistakes in engaging in this disastrous war will never share the ideology of its architects. The "Euro arrogance" that you speak of, if it was arrogance at all, was vindicated in predicting the potential after effects.

Gordon Brown has intimated that we'll do what is in the UK's interest, and won't be following Blair's naive and slavish relationship with them. He/we should ignore whatever goads and provocations emanating from "sources in the US". There will no doubt be many

ThermopylaeRedux

Apropos of this discussion, note this observation from an american military officer on the ground in iraq commenting on the flood of sunnis now wanting to join the american effort, as reported in today's WashPost:

"This is much less about al-Qaeda overstepping than about them [Sunnis] realizing that they've lost," said Lt. Col. Douglas Ollivant, a planner for the U.S. military command in Baghdad. As a result, Sunni groups are now "desperately trying to cut deals with us," he said.

Which is my point entirely. You want to win their hearts and minds? plse do so. but first you have to break their backs. the ugly reality is that there is no other way to do it, and the british army's is proof of this today, as was her victory at Omdurman, in times of greater self confidence.

Never will Iraq be a democracy, and never again will she be a unitary state. but bow to american hegemony she will.

the Gulf is vital to america's global hegemony, and the eradication of the former iraqi threat was vital to america's position in the gulf. as america successfully defended resource rich southeast asia from the precultural revolution maoist threat in the 1960's america will likely stand firm in the gulf and and in afghanistan, long after the europeans have fled.

in its long if reluctant retreat from global responsibility, the defeat at basra might well be the last for britain. blair was britain last, best hope. regretably, the led didnt match up to the leader.

exArmy

ThermopylaeRedux

Go and talk bollox elsewhere you are an embarrassment to yourself and your fellow Americans. Nothing is more embarrassing than some smug self satisfied civilian who has never done a tour in his life talking about combat.

If the USMC was as successful as you say they were, and they are good lads I have served alongside them, something I would wager you have not done. why is there still a insurgency in that neck of the world.

The failiure in the South was not down to British tactics and Strategy, but more down to the lack of resources needed to carry out such a strategy. The same lack of resources that have plagued both us and the Americans since day one. Lack of resources and lack of claer planning.

And the blame lies with Bush and Blair and there advisors, but you are too stupied and have no military experience so would not understand that.

We will pull out so will America, no matter how many Americans you are willing to die for your own self puffed up pride. Pride in others but not in yourself as i would bet you have neither the guts or the bollox to join up and serve.

MrDismal

It always seemed to me that the US planned to stay in Iraq until the oil ran out - and I think that's still the US plan. But with the British Army camped at the Basra airport it looks as though the British intend to leave as soon as they can. And I hate the idea that more British soldiers will die in order to enable politicians to pretend that things aren't as bad as they really are.

And I don't like seeing American soldiers dying for no good purpose either. Invading Iraq was never going to help secure cheap oil supplies for the US and was always going to be a highly dangerous operation since its success depended on the support of the vast majority of Iraqis and that would have only been forthcoming if their lives had been significantly improved quickly. Shock and Awe was the wrong way to start and things have just got worse ever since.

The US supply lines running from the Straits of Hormuz to Baghdad and beyond are vital from a US point of view and they don't look tenable. Meanwhile the supply lines used by the insurgents still seem to work. However, perhaps the surge has interfered with them since I'm not aware of there having been any missile attacks on US bases since Camp Falcon was blown up last October.

There's a lot we're not being told. How well supplied are the US bases? Does the US Navy think it can keep the Straits of Hormuz open if the USAF bombs Iran?

On the wider political front has China expressed dismay at the situation in Iraq (and the consequent massive increase in the oil price), does Iran have Chinese supersonic cruise missiles and could these missiles sink US aircraft carriers? Is Turkey about to take military action inside Kurdish Iraq? Is Pakistan about to have a revolution?

And what's going to happen to the once mighty US dollar? It's testing multi-year lows against a basket of currencies and as it falls so oil (and everything else the US imports) gets more expensive. Invading Iraq was an incredibly stupid way of trying to secure cheap oil for the US.

More than likely it was seen as a good way to boost the oil price (for US oil companies among others) and provide oodles of taxpayers' dollars for the US military industrial complex. And Iraq gets trashed. And that's a massive crime.

charliethechulo

Milne's support for, and glorification of, the so-called "resitance" conveniently ignores the well-documented muderous attacks on democrats, trade unionists, women and gays, as well as the essentially sectarian nature of almost all manifestations of the "resistance" (not just al-Qaida, who Milne and other apologists make carry the can for civilian attacks). The Sunni sectarians and the Mahdi army are not national liberation movements but fascistic thugs and thoroughgoing reactionaries. But then, Stalinists like Milne don't support any sort of postive prgramme for human emancipation in Iraq or anywhere else - they simply want to the the US (and in the case of "goodfairy" the omni-present "Zionists") defeated. That's why Milne can support the fascists and medieval reactionaries of the so-called "resistance". And why I for one take his disavowal of al-Qaida with a pinch of salt: if opposdition to the US is all that matters, why exclude them?

frolix22

"bow to american hegemony she will..."

ThermopylaeRedux appears to be as much an enemy of freedom, peace and indeed reason as any Islamic terrorist.

Finite187

ThermopylaeRedux

"Never will Iraq be a democracy, and never again will she be a unitary state. but bow to american hegemony she will"

at a cost of at least 3,600 American lives, and getting on for a million Iraqis. But hey, as long as you get cheap oil, eh?

What a despicable human being you are..

Mujokan

ThermopylaeRedux, the reason "the surge" is having some success is (as I alluded to in my first post) because they have Petraeus in charge: whose strategy is the antithesis of yours. Another crime to put down to Rumsfeld that he refused to adopt such tactics earlier.

First you were saying these insurgents were the barbarians who had to be slaughtered. Now you are holding their participation in politics up as an example of US success. Which is it? The US is negotiating with these guys, arming them, accepting their help, promising them a role in government. Does that really fit with your first post?

When Lt. Col. Ollivant says they've lost, he's talking about the Sunni's lack of political power relative to the Shiites, not that they've been beaten militarily by the US. That's why Col. Welch says the Sunnis "may be using mechanisms to build their strength and power eventually to challenge this government. This is a risk for all of us". This new attitude may partly be due to the increased help the Shiites are getting from Iran.

(WP article referred to is http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/08/AR2007080802549.html )

To the extent that there is some good news coming out of the Sunni areas, that's because the Americans have finally adopted the tactics the British were using from the start.

The BBC today says regarding "the surge": "The generals in charge insist that it is not just about numbers, but about a change in tactics as well and that the key battle front right now is the political one." Not quite the point you were making initially. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6936816.stm

BlueZebra

The longer the war goes on the more money American banks make funding it. I don't think there is a desire to end this war from the neo-cons.

Tzimisces

Ah, dear Seamus!

While I couldn't agree more that this was a stupid war from the start, I don't think I'll be climbing into bed with your "resistance" *quite* yet.

First- this "resistance" comprises one group- the Sunnis. It is not a "broad front" but a narrow sectarian one.

Secondly, most casualties are from sectarian killings not of soldiers.

Thirdly, I hardly think either the British or the US are "defeated" in Iraq. Their casualties are minimal- at the current rate of loss it will be 10,000 years before Britain has the same level of casualties as in the first world war.

Finally, you claim that this group of Islamists are "anti- al- Queda". Really? Did you ask them any *serious* questions about this? Did you ask them about their methods, their affiliations their beliefs?

Or did you just smile and nod when they gave you the answers they knew you wanted?

Banmeifyoucan

Hopefully, the Iraqis can kick racist colonialists "hegemony" of people like Redux back to where they belong. In time they will realize that the only barbarians are people like Bush and their narrow-minded supporters.

Truthplease

Seumas, along with Murray and Galloway are in support of the Sunni "resistance" which has sheltered Al Queda for four years.

WestToEast

Seumas:-

Excellent article. At the end of the day, it will be the success or failure of the national resistance which will determine if and when the US and UK pull out of Iraq. For all the blabbering and propaganda we have become accustomed to hearing, it is very much a "might makes right" world that we live in.

britannicus

Whether you agree with the author's positive analysis of the resistance or not, this is a brave article - one only a brave newspaper would print. Seamus - it's great you're writing comment pieces again.

followyourheart

"Recognition that the war has been a political and human catastrophe is now so settled that politicians are obliged to pay at least lip service to the pervasive mood for withdrawal."

Not interested in accountability though are they? Remember Mandleson - sacked for taking dodgy loans to pay his mortgage? I mean that is SO much more serious than causing devastaion and blighting the lives of 26,000,000 (MILLION) people. 8,000,000 now malnourished and the majority of them CHILDREN!

Jefferey Archer, lied (perjury) - go to jail.

Jonathan Aitkin, lied (perjury) - go to jail.

We really are a beacon of the enlightenment, democracy and the rule of law, aren't we? People who drop their pants and get caught lying about it go to jail. People who start a war, get caught lying get a new job.

May the thousands of DEAD chidren of Iraq rest in peace, one day, eventually.

Hotbed

After years of reading Guardian commentators criticising US policy in Iraq, I think I've finally figured out their position.

Basically, they reckon Iraq NEEDED a brutal fascist to keep its population in line.

Apparently, the Iraqis have no right to the current civil war gripping their country. Only Western countries like the US, England, Spain etc are allowed civil wars. In countries inhabited by people with brown skin, such wars must be kept forever on hold by men like Saddam Hussein.

In short, the "anti-war movement" is a racist endorsement of fascism. Congratulations, The Guardian.

ThermopylaeRedux

Murkojan

"Now you are holding their participation in politics up as an example of US success."

i am saying no such thing.

as the sunni withdrawals from the cabinet clearly shows, there is no sunni participation in the iraqi government.

and why should there be?

there is no iraqi government worth the name.

indeed there is no iraq worth the name.

in the former iraq there are only two sorts of law, the law of the jungle, and bush's law.

what the sunnis ARE doing is bending to the american will,

to bush's law.

the sunnis are moving ever closer to america because they understand that america has beaten them. they comply, or they die. they are growing weary of that, as cheney know thet would.

that was the lesson the us marines taught in anbar. the sunni proved to be slow learners. but in the end, they learned becuase the marines methods of teaching proved effective.

now that's the stick. but there is a carrot too.

the sunni understand that in the partioning of iraq to come, they have come to understand that adherence to bush's law is the only way of getting access to oil.

"comply or die" was the lesson the british army, and too often the us army, failed to teach.

the us army has since the corrected its errors. since the surge began, the change in tactics is obvious. it is constantly in the enemy's face, and has the casualties to prove it.

the british army didnt change. it chose to read the guardian instead.

It is a tradgedy for british arms.

easterman

14 massive bases still being built.

trillions of $$$$$$$$$$ worth of oil in the ground beneath that will never be ceded to rivals

PSA-type contracts still on the table to be pushed through with bribes to politicians and selective assassination of anti-PSA trade unionists .

In one form or another the US will be there until the long-run costs of extraction exceed the benefits . dead and maimed military are not part of the costings , neither are the iraqi people .

PSA all the way .

exArmy

ThermopylaeRedux

comply or die, do you even read the bollox you write.

Bushs law. You really are living in never never land I bet even Bush would disown you as a supporter if he read the garbage you write.

If I was you I would come out of fantasy land and go to Iraq to see how much of Bushes law they respect.

PeteinSQ

The thing that is causing the war to become unpopular is not casualties amongst British and American forces, these are still quite low. It is the huge numbers of civilians being wiped out by the feted resistance and our own troops. I appreciate that you can't lump all of the fighters opposed to the occupation together but a sizeable number are intent on killing civilians of the wrong creed.

The day they get my support is the day that hell will freeze over.

LaxativeFunction

BlueZebra is right- "The longer the war goes on the more money American banks make funding it."

Above all other considerations, "war", as Major General Smedley D. Butler famously said, "is a racket", a way of moving money from the masses into the pockets of the rich for whom enough is never enough. The US economy is now totally dependent on waging permanent, lucrative war.

The longer the US stays in Iraq (or, indeed, even if it is forced to abandon its plunder) the more valuable Iraq's oil will become. The world's huge oil fields, that have lubricated capitalism's rapacious, devouring destruction of the planet for so long, are being exhausted. Iraq's oil is one of the last remaining untapped deposits of high quality, sweet oil.

That's why the US needed 9/11 so badly. Those overseeing (and profiting from) US energy policy are aware of the world's peaking oil supplies. Now they are publicly fantasising about another 9/11, a nuclear one, they hope, so they can bomb Iran.

You can read what Smedley Butler wrote here:

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

Mujokan

ThermopylaeRedux: OK, well, you're entitled to your view of course, but I think I'll continue to take Gen. Petraeus' interpretation, as outlined in the Military Review article I linked to.

followyourheart

LaxativeFunction

"BlueZebra is right- "The longer the war goes on the more money American banks make funding it."

How many children's lives does a barrel of oil cost these days? 2? 3? 5?

It certainly aint as cheap as it used to be. People should remember that - the next time they fill-up their cars and look through the window at their own child, safely strapped in a booster seat. Oil is so much more valued than blood.

Grown men, on all sides, prefer to kill each other's children than reach honest, trustworthy agreements with each other. Its not difficult to discern which people prefer killing children - it is clear by their style, tone, language and intention. Remember the children, the next time you hear someone saying war is "good".

exArmy

Hotbed

Thats all very well criticising those who criticise American policy.

So what is it about American policy in Iraq that you support.

Ymhos

ThermopylaeRedux writes well, but her skill is in rhetoric rather than analysis. In this she is typical of the neocons who have until recently dominated US policy-making and cannot be written off even now, because they are financed by powerful interests. The distance between their rhetoric and reality betrays their fluency as that of the self-deceiving charlatan, a type that has always flourished in the US. They are secular equivalents of Ted Haggard.

I was wondering which of Tredux's remarks to choose as my text when she came up with a clear winner: "in the former iraq there are only two sorts of law, the law of the jungle, and bush's law." What is the difference? The law of the jungle or the law of the bush: what a choice!

Someone back up the line hazarded that the surge might be having some effect because there have been no attacks on US military bases recently. But why bombard bases when you can bombard the Green Zone?

Hotbed

exArmy

I opposed the invasion at the time. I wondered what the hell we were doing invading what appeared to be a basically stable country. A country that, I guessed, would eventually get rid of its hated government by itself and replace it with something better.

All I know now is that my original reasons for opposing the invasion were completely wrong.

Iraq wasn't a basically stable country. There was no obvious way it could replace Saddam without a massive civil war.

I opposed the war on the basis of wrong assumptions. As did many people, I believe.

marksa

ThermopylaeRedux

"as the sunni withdrawals from the cabinet clearly shows, there is no sunni participation in the iraqi government.

and why should there be?

there is no iraqi government worth the name.

what the sunnis ARE doing is bending to the american will,

to bush's law."

you are correct that there is no Iraqi government, but its the US fiction that there is one. The US 'will' is Sunnis join this fictional national unity government which they have refused

Iraqi political dynamics and the insurgency are far more complex then your keyboard fantasies allude to. I would give up if I were you, its beyond your intellectual abilities.

Its a good article after all. It doesn't ask the obvious question: is the US presence fuelling the sectarian conflict by creating these absurd constructs

logos

The bombing of those Iraqi supporters celebrating the victory of the non-sectarian national Iraqi footbali team said it all about the true nature of "the resistance".

The occupation was ended in 2004 under UN resolution 1546 when the interim Iraqi govenment took power. Coalition troops were then mandated by the UN to keep the peace. Those brave members of "the resistance" are therefore murdering UN peace-keepers when they are not murdering their own people!

dks2

"But the embryonic resistance front has got to be a positive development if it holds together."

Only in The Guardian....

What are your thoughts on the Iraqi translator issue Mr Milne? Should we give them asylum, or should they be left to me murdered by your friends in the "embryonic resistance" movement?

MrDismal

Ymhos - that was me - and I'm still a bit suspicious about the motive for the surge and think that interdicting insurgent Lines Of Communication (eg supply lines) was seen as being very important following the destruction of Camp Falcon by a remarkably accurate (or lucky) missile strike in October 2006. I've watched two videos of the explosions following the attack, one taken from the edge of the base and the other taken from a few miles away. The videos strongly suggest that the US needs to alter the way it stores munitions and should try to prevent the insurgents from getting hold of any more missiles.

At a more general level in the same way that the truth about how badly things were going in Vietnam was kept well hidden I wouldn't be surprised if the same wasn't happening with respect to Iraq. General Danaat's comments in October last year (following the attack on Camp Falcon - which received remarkably little press coverage for such a major event) and the current location of the British Army (at the airport - and under attack) suggest that the British think things are going very badly indeed. Just what sort of protection for the US LOC through Basra can an Army stuck at the airport provide?

But we hear good things about the surge re the Sunnis in and around Baghdad ... and perhaps one of these days there'll be a safe and reliable bus service between the Green Zone and Baghdad airport ... and pigs might fly ...

Dave69

TRedux - the Sunnis may have 'lost', but it's not to the US forces, it's to the Shias that dominate the Govt. That's their real problem, not the USMC.... And that's why they're trying to 'cut deals'....

EnjoyLife

I don't think I have read a more odious and cowardly article since WWII.

Suicide bombers and beheaders, and sectarian slaughterers are 'resistance' are they? Interpreters are 'collaborators'? And clearly the more British troops killed, the better: for your foul piece clearly encourages such a view.

And this is so cowardly because it praises and encourages behaviour which the writer himself would never indulge in himself. If his hatred of the US and Americans is so great - to the extent that the most vile and fascistic groups receive his support as long as they too hate the US - then why doesn't he take up arms against them himself?

For shame that this article should have been published in an established and previously honourable British newspaper.

followyourheart

Hotbed

"All I know now is that my original reasons for opposing the invasion were completely wrong.

Iraq wasn't a basically stable country. There was no obvious way it could replace Saddam without a massive civil war. "

So you now think Bush is right? Iraq of course, post-invasion, is very stable isn't it? So you, like Bush and Bliar, think the solution to Iraq was to turn it into an even worse hell-hole than under Saddam and a breeding ground for terrorism?

The biggest terrorists on the planet are OILMEN (whatever claims they make about nationality or religion) - which ever direction you look in. Warmongers and eco-terrorists! Children are nothing more than collatoral damage to these people. Getting richer and richer is the only thing they care about.

zeke2u

ThermopylaeRedux - "in the former iraq there are only two sorts of law, the law of the jungle, and bush's law."

I can't see the difference, really, between the law of the jungle and bush. How do sado-masochist-racist-colonialists differentiate between the jungle and the laws that gave us hooded prisoners with wires dangling from their hands and joints? Are you sure you're not really GW himself? The arrogant, patronising, infantile tone of your writing is breathtakingly reminiscent.

Johnnyqdog

I do not in any way advocate violence, but would it not be better for all troops bar the US to leave Iraq immediately, and go to Sudan and Zimbabwe in some sort of peace keeping/democracy instilling mission.

I know both countries have very little to offer in return, but could this mission be done just this once in the name of humanity

jname

Learning something every day. Thousands of innocent women, men and children were murdered in Iraq not by "terrorists" and homicidal maniacs but by the "resistance". It is quiet amazing how profound hate of the US can make some-one like Milne to call those degenerate murderers "resistance" fighters. Now if you bomb restaurants, kill people at wading ceremonies, murder innocent market shoppers, bomb children in schools ... by Milne' standards you are a member of the "resistance".

Tzimisces

"Not only could the creation of an alliance with a common programme help open up cooperation with Shia anti-occupation forces now, but if there is going to be a stable post-occupation settlement in Iraq, that will have to include all those with genuine support on the ground."

Now this part is pure fantasy-

a) there is no "common programme".

b) It is sectarian so there is no cooperation with Shias.

c) MOst Shias are going to be very suspicious of a Sunni "resistance" movement consisting of Sunni religious fanatics and ex- Baathists.

d) I doubt whether these groups have widespread "genuine support on the ground".

e) Why do you think there is going to be a "Stable post- occupation settlement"? Why not bloody civil war followed by a Sunni theocracy?

All in all an article based on wishful thinking and tunnel vision.

LaxativeFunction

Enjoy life-

What do you think the US bombs, bullets, missiles, chemicals do; the radioactive dust, the beatings, the torture, the terror, the speeding convoys and the destroyed infrastructure?

They foment hatred for the vile and fascistic USA.

Take your head out of wherever it is and have a look at the real world.

The lovely USA has separated plenty of human heads from their human bodies.

War is a crime.

ThomasCopyrightMMVII

"negotiate its way out"

Nooh... When they find they can't have the oil, they'll end up shooting their way out. That's the way of these people.

Just come away, leave them to it...

littleroy

US is looking for someone to come and 'save its ass' from the Iraqis.

bootboys

the Gulf is vital to america's global hegemony, and the eradication of the former iraqi threat was vital to america's position in the gulf. as america successfully defended resource rich southeast asia from the precultural revolution maoist threat in the 1960's america will likely stand firm in the gulf and and in afghanistan, long after the europeans have fled.

in its long if reluctant retreat from global responsibility, the defeat at basra might well be the last for britain. blair was britain last, best hope. regretably, the led didnt match up to the leader.'

ThermopylaeRedux

I don't know what kind of drugs you're on but can I have some? 'as america successfully defended resource rich southeast asia from the precultural revolution maoist threat in the 1960's' - Now there's an interesting spin on the debacle in Vietnam.

Blair was Britain's last, best hope.' Utterly ridiculous.

iplot

jname

you bomb restaurants, kill people at wading ceremonies, murder innocent market shoppers, bomb children in schools... ****

You can list all the atrocities you want to try an establish the moral superiority of your own side's atrocities but it won't alter the fact that the invaders are being resisted.

It's very simple really.

ThermopylaeRedux

hotbed

"Iraq wasn't a basically stable country. There was no obvious way it could replace Saddam without a massive civil war. ..I opposed the war on the basis of wrong assumptions."

your honesty is to be commended.

the civil war in iraq--indeed the sunni/shiite war that may yet consume much of the middle east, has been in the making for a long time.

mr. cheney well understood that if he lit a spark, a conflagration might well result. divide and conquer became burn and conquer.

Tutug

I find the premise that the US actually want to leave Iraq bit naive. Why do you think they are building the largest US embassy complex in Baghdad for? America's dream that some day Iraqis will surrender the control of oil to the Americans and just go about minding their own daily business leaving all big decisions to an American approved and monitored "democratically elected" leader like Ahmed Chalabi. That is how it started isn't it?

imasmadashell

"the US marines annhilated their enemies in Anbar." "extirpate barbarism". "but first you have to break their backs". "they comply, or they die". "divide and conquer became burn and conquer" Really, Therm, you seem to be descending into some nightmarish Twilight

Zone

Thermo, old bean, I suggest you get some serious therapy. No one could possibly rejoice, the way you do, at the death and destruction we see in Iraq, without being mentally unhinged. You really need help, because I just get this mental image of you,eyes bulging, spital flying, chewing at your keyboard as you write.

ThomasCopyrightMMVII

ThermopylaeRedux,

Sure, that must be the plan. Leave the cavalry in the fort for fifty years to stop the locals disrupting the flow of oil.

But if they can't have the oil, then there's no point. Then they'll have to shoot their way out.

socialistMike

I appreciate that you can't lump all of the fighters opposed to the occupation together but a sizeable number are intent on killing civilians of the wrong creed.'

In reality, according to US govt statistics the fanatic Sunnis make up a tiny proportion in numbers. The vast majority of the resistance is composed of groups that target the occupying armies and the puppet government's police forces, as is their right and duty.

Also: 'The day they get my support is the day that hell will freeze over.'

I agree with that!

Another point about the Shia death-squads is that these aren't mainly from the Mahdi Army, though that body is amorphous enough not to have compete control over any renegade sections of killers and there seems to be a number of them, but from the main government party's own militia, the Badr Brigades, and the US recruited section of the Badr that swapped uniforms and became the Special Police Commando working for the Interior Ministry. These were the people hired to carry out the 'Salvador Option' i.e. the indiscriminate murder of Sunnis similar to the US backed indiscriminate murder in Latin America of peasants, nuns, teachers etc, in the 70s and 80s.

marksa

"I don't know what kind of drugs you're on but can I have some? 'as america successfully defended resource rich southeast asia from the precultural revolution maoist threat in the 1960's' - Now there's an interesting spin on the debacle in Vietnam."

well neocon spin is what we are getting now, dividing into 2 distinct strands: the 'enjoylife' and the 'thermonukem'. All designed to save Mr Cheney's eventual loss of face.

I agrew with YmHos, this is still rhetoric rather than analysis. Any attempts at the later are still rubbished.

But they have been doing this for over 4 years now, and unfortunately its catching up, dudes.

MobyFen

ThermopylaeRedux "Which is my point entirely. You want to win their hearts and minds? plse do so. but first you have to break their backs. the ugly reality is that there is no other way to do it, and the british army's is proof of this today, as was her victory at Omdurman, in times of greater self confidence"

I don't know why you use Omdurman as an example. It was a battle not a counterinsurgency. The opponents thoughtfully bunched themselves up in huge, lightly armed numbers in a desert well away from any non-combatants. They then obligingly charged over open ground towards the British infantry and machine guns. What on earth does this have to say about fighting a modern counter-insurgency?

The British have historically been far more successful in defeating insurgencies than the US, including most recently in Northern Ireland. What the British Army and every expert on insurgencies, including Gen Patreaus, agree is that force is not enough. Yes you do have to fight and kill the enemy. But it has to be part of a wider strategy that wins hearts and minds. The British did it expertly in Malaya and won, the US did it badly in Vietnam and lost.

The approach that you suggest is working or should work is nonsense. I think I'd go with Gen Patreaus' views, as I think he probably has more experience than you sitting in your armchair.

exArmy

Hotbed

So its ok to invade countries that are not stable.

Anyone could of told you that Iraq was not a stable country, which makes it even worse that we went in the way we did.

ThermopylaeRedux applauds your honesty thats because he spouts nothing but bollox.

If we invaded Iraq because it was completely unstable and therefore a danger to the stability of the Middle East, and I have heard this argument before. In fact I new this argument pre 2003. In fact it was the reason we did not go in after Kuwait. I also happened to take part in that operation as well.

Lets look at the facts.

We knew Iraq was unstable.

We knew toppling Saddam would result in what we are seeing today.

I will run round stark bollock naked with the stars and stripes stuck to me head. If one American any American with just a bit of intelligence can explain to me why

We marched in toppled Saddam and did not plan or set aside any resources to deal with the instability we knew would result.

Like I said your President is a complete boner the man is an embarrassment to all Americans.

SinEmbargo

"Only broader resistance is likely to break the American grip "

The whole premise of this article is nonsense. The "American grip" as the author so dramatically describes it is nothing of the sort. The US clearly does not have a grip because otherwise they and the British would not be falling over themselves to find a way out of this mess.

It is the Sunni and Shia extremists who have a GRIP. If the author cannot tell who is in the acendancy then he has been living on another planet for the last few years.

In addition, this whole piece seems written from the perspective that all this Muslim on Muslim violence is a good way to get rid of the terrible Americans.

This article is odious and encourages more Muslim on Muslim violence. How perverse!

wooden

If only the Americans adn the British ahd taken just a hint of Justice with them to Iraq the whole thing might have worked.

If we just pull out we can't make it any worse for the ordinary Iraqi. We can bring the mafia under control by regulating who we do business with. That would eliminate the American intermediaries who exploit the current position.

The Iraquis woiuld onlyhve one decision to make . Do they fight each other or group[ together to rebuild he country.

They ahve all the wealth they could ever need if they are allowed to exploit it for the national good.

I worked their and know they ahve the intelligence to run their own affiars.

joop

Saddam Hussein was negotiating with russian and french parties about winning oil. The american invasion ended that phase.

The control of the oilfields is still in negotiation. The iraqi puppetgovernment is trying hard to get the opposing parties in Iraq on one line but until now it did not work out.

The Iraqi puppetgovernment is to pass the "hydrocarbon law" in which the oilcontrol will be settled. To be able to do so it was until now the task of the USA to convince the wold that the iraqi government is an independent and democraticely operating body . Certainly for that reason the americans had to stay massively in Iraq ( of course as "advisors" ) and cannot say when they will leave.

The USA , Britain , the IMF and some big western oilcompanies demand the control over the iraqi oil .

The iraqi government is doing the utmost to press the hydrocarbon law. For that reason they suppress the "democraticly" chosen opposition like de Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions. In this matter only the american wish is law.

In short: The americans will stay until the battle for the oil is won. The british have to follow despite the general disgust against the war. Business must go on !

ThermopylaeRedux

mujokan, mobyfen

gentelmen, what you are both missing is that american strategy in iraq IS Gen Petraeus' strategy. It is he, not I, who orders the US army out of their bases and into the faces of the insurgents!

and he is doing this because that was the marines' strategy in in anbar, particularly ramadi and fallujah, and it worked, plain and simple.

the british army, or more fairly, its masters, have done the opposite. they have emulated not the americans, but the italians, who remained holed up in their compounds and accomplished little but saving their own skins.

no war, insurgency or otherwise, was ever won that way. there is no mystery to the british defeat in basra.

one day, there will be hell to pay for this outrage. the name gordon brown may well live in infamy.

zeke2u

I find it amusing how posters can question the author's acknowledgment that the US has suffered a "strategic defeat". I would go further and say the nationalists insurgents have already won. Even the Baker study group said there was no evidence that long-term deployment of troops "would lead to fundamental improvements in the security situation" which they called "grave and deteriorating". The mighty US, driven out of Vietnam by well organized forces, generously supported with supplies by China and the USSR, can now easily be defeated by an irregular army of insurgents. I don't care how brilliant Petraeus is, developing countries must now know that self-determination will prevail against any imperialist aggressor. In place of the author's concern over negotiations between Iraqi nationalists and imperialists, what is really needed is a nationalist movement, here in the US. The imperialists have abandoned the US (military bases have been closing here, the infrastructure is falling apart, manufacturing jobs have been exported, etc.) and seem only concerned with foreign interests. Iraq has proven that imperialism is weak and it's high time that we organize ourselves and eliminate it from within as a viable option.

MoreWar

I think we should "shock n awe" the UK next.

exArmy

ThermopylaeRedux

Isnt it time for you to get into your jim jams and go to bed before mum tells you off.

You can come and play war again tomorrow who knows you may even get rid of that yellow streak and join up.

Walk the walk instead of talking the talk untter complete bollox. You may learn something

solicitor

" but it won't alter the fact that the invaders are being resisted......"

Perhaps you could expand on exactly how truckbombing crowded markets contributes to "resisting the invaders."

Seumas: Well, at least you're an honest enough Trot to openly admit to supporting anybody, no matter how vile, so long as they (occasionally) kill Americans.

titipap

Clearly Tredux is some sort of ironic alter ego - the CiF version of Borat, perhaps. I think the name, and what it rhymes with, is an obvious clue.

He or she cannot be real, even in America!

SinEmbargo

Im actually shocked at the tone of this article. It is clearly written by a mind which must rejoice every time a suicide bomb goes off in a market in iraq. It as morally repugnant as Cheney and Bush because it celebrates the cult of death and the idea that if you spill enough blood you will get your own way.

This piece could have been written by Bin laden as some sort of rallying call.

Its surprising that this article is allowed to stand. Its deeply offensive.

Yes i now will remember the name Seumas Milne - for all the wrong reasons. its an intellectually and morally dishonest way to go about trying to get publicity.

I can only hope that is the writers objective and he isnt really serious.

Cholo

Am I living on a different planet? Do all these posters REALLY want the "resistance" to succeed?

littleroy: It is not the US that needs to be save from Iraqis. It is other Iraqis. Why do the resistance put bombs in market place. Seumas seems to think if the US pulled out that would be a great thing.

Let me spell this out: muslims want to kill other muslims in a war for supremacy. The US and UK are stopping them.

Another crucial issue: if the US pull out the Saudis say they will go in. Will that be a problem? Not that many posters here care about Iraq. For them, like Seaumas, its all about the fight against capitalism and the US.

ThomasCopyrightMMVII

MoreWar: "I think we should "shock n awe" the UK next."

I think we should bomb Texas next, they've got oil.

exArmy

I am all for you trying to shock and awe my Country MoreWar as long as you and ThermopylaeRedux have the bollox to be in the first wave.

Though to tell the truth I would be to busy pissing my self with laughter at the two of you waddeling ashore to aim straight.

21stCenturyPublius

Negotiation is inevitably the only real solution to the ongoing violence in Iraq. Mr. Milne makes an important argument and offers some interesting insights on this issue. However, at points his article seems to portray the violent attacks of some Iraqi insurgents as justified resistance against some evil occupying force. Mr. Milne sounds almost gleeful about the failure of the US, Britain and the other Coalition partners to provide lasting security in Iraq when he writes:

What is clear is that the US has already suffered a strategic defeat in Iraq. A flagrant act of aggression intended to be a demonstration of untrammelled US imperial power to impose its will on the heart of the oil-producing Arab and Muslim world has instead demonstrated a fatal vulnerability to "asymmetric warfare".'

Flagrant act of aggression', 'US imperial power' - entirely balanced view of US motives for war in Iraq there. He then almost seems to encourage the insurgents to step up their campaign in order to force the US to withdraw faster:

In other words, the price of staying in Iraq will have to rise still further if the US is going to be forced out and Iraq regain its independence. Inside Iraq, that price can only be exacted by increased resistance. More than any other single factor, it has been the war of attrition waged by Iraq's armed resistance - or insurgency as it is usually described in the western media - that has successfully challenged the world's most powerful army and driven the demand for withdrawal to the top of the political agenda in Washington.'

Note too the pointed use of the term 'armed resistance' and denigration of the more oft-applied 'insurgency'. Insurgency implies, unfairly according to Mr. Milne, that the bloodthirsty militants who are killing British and American troops and preventing their own country from reaching any kind of stability are somehow doing wrong, whereas of course these wonderful freedom fighters are actually engaged in a perfectly justifiable fight against a foreign oppressor.

As Mr. Milne reminds us: 'The history of anti-colonial and anti-occupation resistance campaigns shows that success has almost always depended on broad-based national movements.'

So let's all hope that the Iraqis get their act together and kill lots more Americans and Brits so that we're even more desperate to pull out as soon as possible, attempt to negotiate a solution before the security situation has at all stabilised, and leave Iraq to degenerate into a quagmire of sectarian bloodlust - is that the idea?

Negotiation with a broad-based national movement is essential to facilitate a withdrawal of US and British troops in a way that leaves Iraq secure. But moves are already being made in this direction - see article in today's Washington Post, "Sunni Fighters Find Strategic Benefits in Tentative Alliance with U.S." It is irresponsible of Mr. Milne to suggest that attacks on American and British force are positive in any way, however indirect, and negotiation will go nowhere until the security situation improves.

Bitethehand

When what Mr Milne calls the "broader resistance" he sounds like he's talking about the struggle in Vietnam, where once it was clear which side was going to win, very few Vietnamese wanted to be associated with the losing side.

But he's less than convincing with his arguement that once the US and UK troops are gone, as they must, Iraq will after a brief transitional period, be a country at peace with itself.

ThomasCopyrightMMVII

Both Mujokan and MobyFen mention Northern Ireland, above. But, the fact is, the ratio of soldiers to civilians as used in Northern Ireland by the British Army to provide reasonable safety to civilians, would require half a million U.S. troops (in Iraq), even if the insurgents were relatively passive. At this late stage, probably a lot more than that.

So, I would have thought that if the U.S. seriously plans to restore law and order now, they're going to have to bring back the draft. And if they're not (and they can't have the oil), then why stay?

marksa

21stCenturyPublius

"'Flagrant act of aggression', 'US imperial power' - entirely balanced view of US motives for war in Iraq there.

but it was specifically designed as assertion of the US ability to remake countries at will. Are you in denial?

"He then almost seems to encourage the insurgents to step up their campaign in order to force the US to withdraw faster:"

do you think insurgents read the Guardian? this is a classic statement from Americans these ddays. Political consciousness is to be the province of white middle aged males it seems.

the article really hinges around whether the 'insurgency' can be classed as 'resistance'. An insurgency is defined as a armed rebellion against a constituted government. The Iraqi 'government' doesn't really meet this test.

the use of the word 'resistance' may grate for Americans, but its an objective view, not necessarily a value judgement.

Milne is also suggesting an increased sectarian divide will be fostered. This is a classic imperial tactic and the only way to hang on. So the american posters here have a lot work to do in the years ahead. More carnage and mayhem do defend

outsurgent

Two more British soldiers killed today in Irak, Seumus will be pleased. Shame on you.

followyourheart

outsurgent

"Two more British soldiers killed today in Irak, Seumus will be pleased. Shame on you."

Almost 1,000,000 Iraqis dead, 4,000,000 displaced and 8,000,000 malnourished. Shame on us.

kimng

S. Milne points out the never-denied goal of the US: permanent "enduring" presence in Iraq; permanent "enduring" US bases. this is - or should be - a grave concern for all of us, whether we live in the ME or on the other side of the world. Even if the "enduring" occupation were confined to Iraq, this is a receipe for continuing the toll of death, disruption and mis-allocation of national treasure that we are being told to stand by and wave a flag over.

The tragic waste of humanity, of Iraqi promise, future, lives; the waste and destruction of young soldiers - imagine all continuing for years while the "diplomats" get their shit together. Or, until the people actually take their deminished "democract" republic and its citizen responsibilities seriously enough to stop the funding of the carnage.

If Iraqis could pull back from the chaos long enough to see that the US NEVER intends to leave, then some miracle of a full national strike could end what force and "diplomacy" cannot. The Iraqi Oil Workers Union can show the way. There will be sacrifices, but in the light of the callous plans of the last empire, they will be well worth it.

Live peace + live well

21stCenturyPublius

marksa:

Thank you for your comments.

"[the Iraq war] was specifically designed as assertion of the US ability to remake countries at will. Are you in denial?"

No. There is great debate over the real reasons for the Iraq war but the stated aims were (a) to remove the danger of WMDs (obviously, this turned out to be a false alarm), (b) to remove Saddam Hussein from power. I'm also convinced there were elements of hubris in the American strategy, but this is not the same as 'specifically designed' to assert US power. Even the ardent neocons saw that as a secondary result.

"do you think insurgents read the Guardian? this is a classic statement from Americans these ddays. Political consciousness is to be the province of white middle aged males it seems."

You never know! The point stands regardless - it is irresponsible and, in my view, morally reprehensible to suggest (even if indirectly) that the further destabilising of Iraq and the killing of troops who are aiming to rebuild the country could be a positive action. This holds regardless of the audience. Also, why do you assume I'm a white, middle-aged American?

"An insurgency is defined as a armed rebellion against a constituted government. The Iraqi 'government' doesn't really meet this test. the use of the word 'resistance' may grate for Americans, but its an objective view, not necessarily a value judgement."

Certainly, 'resistance' is not necessarily a value judgement, but Milne makes it into one by his tone and the context of his use of the word. Also, I would dispute thof 'insurgency', = 'the quality or state of being insurgent; specifically : a condition of revolt against a recognized government that does not reach the proportions of an organized revolutionary government and is not recognized as belligerency' (Websters). The Iraqi government, for all its faults, is recognised (or constituted, for that matter, to use your definition).

Yours,

Publius

SeumasMilne

Critical posts seem to fall into three categories. First, there are the febrile racist and colonial fantasies ("barbarians", "non-existent reasoning capability" etc) of thermopulaeRedux, which others have already dealt with.

Then there seem to be a group of people (big overlap with the understandably depleted pro-war camp here) who insist that if you take the Iraqi resistance seriously, you must support beheadings and market suicide bombings - not to mention fascism and medieval obscurantism to boot (hello charliethechulo, PeteinSQ, EnjoyLife, jname and the rest of the gang).

Needless to say, that's not the case. Clearly, Iraqis have a right to resist foreign invasion and occupation, by force if necessary - and that is in no way affected by an ex post facto UN resolution in the wake of an explicit refusal by the security council to authorise the invasion. Whether they exercise that right is up to them -- and it certainly isn't up to those who have failed to prevent their own governments from unprovoked aggression at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives to dictate what their political programme should be.

As in other occupations around the world, legitimate resistance includes attacks on the occupying forces and their local allies - it obviously does not include deliberate indiscriminate targeting of civilians. Of course, the resistance war is not the only war going on in Iraq - but it is the one that has played the decisive role in pushing withdrawal to the top of the US agenda and derailing the neocon project.

The third - and more interesting - group of critics (Mujokan and others) seem to think I've got an excessively optimistic view of the chances of the Sunni-based resistance and anti-occupation Shia forces making common cause, given the sectarian climate. I don't think so: it's obviously become much more difficult as the occupation has gone on and there's no question that the occupation has fuelled the sectarian gulf.

My point was simply that broader national resistance will be necessary to drive the US out - and that when there has been large-scale simultaneous Sunni and Shia resistance (as in 2004), the occupation has looked seriously shaky.

Finally, Tzimisces seems determined to doubt the seriousness of the new political front between seven Sunni-based resistance groups, insisting - slightly weirdly - that they have no common programme or significant support on the ground. On the former point, they do (some of which is summarised in my report in the Guardian on 19/7/07 ('Out of the Shadows')). On the latter, see the latest Iraqi opinion polls on support for the resistance and take a look at page 16 of the cross-party Iraq Commission Report, which lists several of them as the "main four or five groups" of the insurgency. As to whether they are serious about their anti-sectarian stance, time will tell - but there's no doubt it's an important political move.

SeumasMilne

Critical posts seem to fall into three categories. First, there are the febrile racist and colonial fantasies ("barbarians", "non-existent reasoning capability" etc) of thermopulaeRedux, which others have already dealt with.

Then there seem to be a group of people (big overlap with the understandably depleted pro-war camp here) who insist that if you take the Iraqi resistance seriously, you must support beheadings and market suicide bombings - not to mention fascism and medieval obscurantism to boot (hello charliethechulo, PeteinSQ, EnjoyLife, jname and the rest of the gang).

Needless to say, that's not the case. Clearly, Iraqis have a right to resist foreign invasion and occupation, by force if necessary - and that is in no way affected by an ex post facto UN resolution in the wake of an explicit refusal by the security council to authorise the invasion. Whether they exercise that right is up to them -- and it certainly isn't up to those who have failed to prevent their own governments from unprovoked aggression at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives to dictate what their political programme should be.

As in other occupations around the world, legitimate resistance includes attacks on the occupying forces and their local allies - it obviously does not include deliberate indiscriminate targeting of civilians. Of course, the resistance war is not the only war going on in Iraq - but it is the one that has played the decisive role in pushing withdrawal to the top of the US agenda and derailing the neocon project.

The third - and more interesting - group of critics (Mujokan and others) seem to think I've got an excessively optimistic view of the chances of the Sunni-based resistance and anti-occupation Shia forces making common cause, given the sectarian climate. I don't think so: it's obviously become much more difficult as the occupation has gone on and there's no question that the occupation has fuelled the sectarian gulf.

My point was simply that broader national resistance will be necessary to drive the US out - and that when there has been large-scale simultaneous Sunni and Shia resistance (as in 2004), the occupation has looked seriously shaky.

Finally, Tzimisces seems determined to doubt the seriousness of the new political front between seven Sunni-based resistance groups, insisting - slightly weirdly - that they have no common programme or significant support on the ground. On the former point, they do (some of which is summarised in my report in the Guardian on 19/7/07 ('Out of the Shadows')). On the latter, see the latest Iraqi opinion polls on support for the resistance and take a look at page 16 of the cross-party Iraq Commission Report, which lists several of them as the "main four or five groups" of the insurgency. As to whether they are serious about their anti-sectarian stance, time will tell - but there's no doubt it's an important political move.