What the hell does the Iraq insurgence want?

[resinrats]

Their actions make no sense. They just keep blowing up shit for no reason as far as I can see. I could see them doing it against the coilition forces but they just kill their own people. Why, for shits and giggles?!?!? Killing cops left and right and blowing up kids. WTF? I think they are just a bunch of psychos that just get their jollies blowing up stuff.

Sure they want the colition forces gone but they sure aren't helping it. They are making it stay longer. They are helping keep a new govt from forming. Are those retards too stupid to realize that as long as there is no govt., there will be foreign troops there.

Anyone have ideas?

[JasonF]

Generally, they want to bloody our (U.S.) noses, either by killing our servicemen, or by killing those associated with the government we support. I think if we pulled out tomorrow and the provisional government collapsed, some of the insurgents would start trying to consolidate power under a restored Baathist regime and some of them would move on to the next battlefield on which they could fight us.

[Goldblum]

Their actions make no sense. They just keep blowing up shit for no reason as far as I can see. I could see them doing it against the coilition forces but they just kill their own people. Why, for shits and giggles?!?!? Killing cops left and right and blowing up kids. WTF? I think they are just a bunch of psychos that just get their jollies blowing up stuff.

Sure they want the colition forces gone but they sure aren't helping it. They are making it stay longer. They are helping keep a new govt from forming. Are those retards too stupid to realize that as long as there is no govt., there will be foreign troops there.

Anyone have ideas?

I think you answered your own question. However, what JasonF said is also true.

[Mammal]

Unlike our wise leaders in Washington, they apparently have studied history. As in Vietnam, a war of attrition is their best prospect for success. The more chaos the better for them and the worse for us.

[VinVega]

They'll stop blowing shit up once they're in control. It's sort of like a Mobster and protection money. The people will feel safe once the insurgency is in control. They'll be protected by the insurgency FROM the insurgency. Sounds like a win/win doesn't it? ;)

[salamander2]

Some are HUssen sympathizers who want the old regime back.

[Pharoh]

I can not answer because there does not exist 'an' insurgency. The goals of the disparate groups, (primarily three, one of which has little cohesion), are not the same.

[Pharoh]

To answer the question for at least one portion of the anti-Coalition forces, I will use their own words and images. Taken from Al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers, the goal is a constitution that is the Qur'an, a Sunni Islamic state.

[chess]

If anybody ever invades this country, you bet your ass I'm gonna blow some shit up. Hey, I'm just sayin'.

Granted, I'd try to avoid blowing up my own countrymen, unless maybe I felt that they were traitors. Hmmmmm, come to think of it, these guys might not be so crazy. They're just wrong about us and our intentions (I hope).

[Pharoh]

If anybody ever invades this country, you bet your ass I'm gonna blow some shit up. Hey, I'm just sayin'.

Granted, I'd try to avoid blowing up my own countrymen, unless maybe I felt that they were traitors. Hmmmmm, come to think of it, these guys might not be so crazy. They're just wrong about us and our intentions (I hope).



But would you go to Costa Rica and blow shit up there if somebody 'invaded' it? That is the more apt analogy to what is going on in Iraq currently.

[chess]

Costa Rica? How is that an apt analogy?

If you had said "Canada", I might have been on board...or even one of our NATO allies.

[JasonF]

If anybody ever invades this country, you bet your ass I'm gonna blow some shit up. Hey, I'm just sayin'.

Granted, I'd try to avoid blowing up my own countrymen, unless maybe I felt that they were traitors. Hmmmmm, come to think of it, these guys might not be so crazy. They're just wrong about us and our intentions (I hope).

Tarring and feathering of loyalists during the Revolutionary War was not uncommon.

[VinVega]

Tarring and feathering of loyalists during the Revolutionary War was not uncommon.
Nor was American involvement in a number of Central American affairs over the past 30 years.

[kvrdave]

If anybody ever invades this country, you bet your ass I'm gonna blow some shit up. Hey, I'm just sayin'.

Granted, I'd try to avoid blowing up my own countrymen, unless maybe I felt that they were traitors. Hmmmmm, come to think of it, these guys might not be so crazy. They're just wrong about us and our intentions (I hope).

If somebody comes to this country and tries to set up a government in which there are representatives from all groups, I would try to let it get established with the least amount of violence possible and then change it through its structure.

But they don't like the idea of protection for different ideologies.

I highly doubt you would become violent at the idea of the establishment of a democracy. Some people (like the insurgents) do not believe in the basic freedoms of individuals, they believe in people living as they see fit according to their rules as set forth by their religion.

[Pharoh]

Costa Rica? How is that an apt analogy?

If you had said "Canada", I might have been on board...or even one of our NATO allies.



The vast bulk of the 'insurgents' are coming from the Greater Middle East. Places such as Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Turkmenistan, and others. The Costa Rica analogy if fully apt. The terrorists now in Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq previously, no kinship or any geographic motive for killing innocents and those who desire a better existence for the Iraqi people.

[classicman2]

What do the insurgents want? Ultimately they want to be the big dogs and call the shots.

[VinVega]

If somebody comes to this country and tries to set up a government in which there are representatives from all groups, I would try to let it get established with the least amount of violence possible and then change it through its structure.

But they don't like the idea of protection for different ideologies.

I highly doubt you would become violent at the idea of the establishment of a democracy. Some people (like the insurgents) do not believe in the basic freedoms of individuals, they believe in people living as they see fit according to their rules as set forth by their religion.
That's a good point kvr. I'd add to it simply that they believe in welding political power with a gun, rather than with a pen or a ballot. That's about as basic as it gets. A lot of this crap is just conducting politics as it has been for a long time in many areas of the globe.

[sfsdfd]

But they don't like the idea of protection for different ideologies.
I don't think the insurgency simply prefers violence to less violent channels - any more than the Palestinians, or the IRA in Ireland, simply "preferred" a long, bloody campaign to diplomacy. They rely on violence because they feel (correctly) that non-violent channels cannot achieve their ends.

Viewed negatively, the insurgency can be characterized as a mechanism of forcing a totalitarian Islamic regime on an Iraqi people burning for democracy. But I don't believe that's accurate - because I've read first-person accounts of what Iraqis really think of democracy and their new government.

A more accurate view is that the insurgents have two goals: (a) to drive America out of the middle east in general, and (b) to undermine the new Iraq government that is essentially a proxy for America. While I don't think the insurgents truly have the best interests of Iraq at heart, I think that <i>they</i> think they do.

- David Stein

[Pharoh]

I don't think the insurgency simply prefers violence to less violent channels - any more than the Palestinians, or the IRA in Ireland, simply "preferred" a long, bloody campaign to diplomacy. They rely on violence because they feel (correctly) that non-violent channels cannot achieve their ends.

Viewed negatively, the insurgency can be characterized as a mechanism of forcing a totalitarian Islamic regime on an Iraqi people burning for democracy. But I don't believe that's accurate - because I've read first-person accounts of what Iraqis really think of democracy and their new government.

A more accurate view is that the insurgents have two goals: (a) to drive America out of the middle east in general, and (b) to undermine the new Iraq government that is essentially a proxy for America. While I don't think the insurgents truly have the best interests of Iraq at heart, I think that <i>they</i> think they do.

- David Stein


But, as I posted above, that is not what the terrorists themselves say. And remember, most are not even Iraqi.

[Myster X]

another Taliban-like regime in Iraq

[sfsdfd]

But, as I posted above, that is not what the terrorists themselves say.
Well, what they say they want - a nation based on Islamic law - is what they think is in Iraq's best interest, and Islam's in general. (I don't agree, but I think it's a valid viewpoint - though they're pursuing it by wholly invalid means.)

I know that people like pointing to some of al'Qaeda's speeches as evidence that their primary goal is to annihilate America. I just don't believe it's their true intention - it's more a ground-troops motivational speech. I can imagine our Army officers whipping up troop support by telling our grunts that this is World War III, that they want to destroy America and eat our babies, etc. - and I'd hope that those messages are also taken in context.
And remember, most are not even Iraqi.
Yup. I think the Saudi Arabian constituency is declining, but it has always been a large component of the insurgency.

The insurgency - and the terrorism movement worldwide - operates like a cult. They don't really care about the nationality of their operators, just that they can throw them at the cause <i>du jour</i>.

- David Stein

[classicman2]

Well, what they say they want - a nation based on Islamic law - is what they think is in Iraq's best interest, and Islam's in general. (I don't agree, but I think it's a valid viewpoint - though they're pursuing it by wholly invalid means.)

That's why we have to be careful in 'bringing democracies' to places that have no history of democratic institutions. As has been said a number of times - we might very well not like the democracy we created.

[Pharoh]

Well, what they say they want - a nation based on Islamic law - is what they think is in Iraq's best interest, and Islam's in general. (I don't agree, but I think it's a valid viewpoint - though they're pursuing it by wholly invalid means.)

I know that people like pointing to some of al'Qaeda's speeches as evidence that their primary goal is to annihilate America. I just don't believe it's their true intention - it's more a ground-troops motivational speech. I can imagine our Army officers whipping up troop support by telling our grunts that this is World War III, that they want to destroy America and eat our babies, etc. - and I'd hope that those messages are also taken in context.

I don't disagree, having posted similar thoughts many times on this forum, (it has never been about religion at the core), but I was speaking on a much more practical and tactical sense. The cessation of the constitutional process, along with a subsequent implementation of an Islamic state, are the pragmatic goals the terrorists are striving for. They don't just say this, they plan for it and attempt to execute it every single day. A couple of the more popular images being used by the terrorists, and making the rounds everywhere in Iraq are one simply of the Qur'an with the word Constitution, and the other a voting booth with the ubiquitous red circle and strikethrough line along with the image of an armed terrorist. In this case what they say, post, and do are one and the same.


Yup. I think the Saudi Arabian constituency is declining, but it has always been a large component of the insurgency.

The insurgency - and the terrorism movement worldwide - operates like a cult. They don't really care about the nationality of their operators, just that they can throw them at the cause <i>du jour</i>.

- David Stein



Precisely. That is why what they are doing, and saying, has nothing to do with their thoughts of what is in Iraq's best interest, but rather everything to do with what is in their own best interests. It is not about Iraq or her people at all, it is about the terrorists and their pillage.

[Ranger]

The vast bulk of the 'insurgents' are coming from the Greater Middle East. Places such as Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Turkmenistan, and others. The Costa Rica analogy if fully apt. The terrorists now in Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq previously, no kinship or any geographic motive for killing innocents and those who desire a better existence for the Iraqi people.
There is also Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Syria. I haven't looked at a map lately but I think all those countries are closer to Iraq than Costa Rica. IIRC, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan (not counting Morocco) are considered to have a large population that sympathizes with al Qaeda. I agree that they're jihadists hungry for power, but they certainly didn't come out of nowhere.

[sfsdfd]

I don't disagree, having posted similar thoughts many times on this forum, (it has never been about religion at the core)...
That's why we have to be careful in 'bringing democracies' to places that have no history of democratic institutions. As has been said a number of times - we might very well not like the democracy we created.
Huh. Weird. A Democrat, a Republican, and a Libertarian all agreeing on something about Iraq. Next we'll be singing "We Are The World" on <b>gkleinman</b>'s DVD Talk audio broadcast.
That is why what they are doing, and saying, has nothing to do with their thoughts of what is in Iraq's best interest, but rather everything to do with what is in their own best interests. It is not about Iraq or her people at all, it is about the terrorists and their pillage.
<b>classicman</b> would assert, and I would agree, that the U.S. has similarly used Iraq as a tool for its own ends. The fact that our use for Iraq is more benevolent than theirs is almost incidental.

But I think at least part of their ideology involves an "advanced" Iraq, as they would define the term. If their goal is to restore Islam as an empire, both religiously and culturally, then wouldn't they see their vision as a good thing for Iraq?
A couple of the more popular images being used by the terrorists, and making the rounds everywhere in Iraq are one simply of the Qur'an with the word Constitution...
Nice. That appears to be the administration's current fallback position - and the likely result - though they wouldn't admit as much. ( :( )

I heard a segment on NPR the other day about how the dissolution of the IRA in Ireland, which the UK is trumpeting as success over violence, is in fact the logical result of having given the IRA everything they wanted. It's a complete success for a terrorist group, though it's spun very differently by the official channels. Iraq is starting to look very similar.

- David Stein

[E70f]

the dissolution of the IRA in Ireland, which the UK is trumpeting as success over violence, is in fact the logical result of having given the IRA everything they wanted.

Eire get the 6 counties?

[sfsdfd]

Eire get the 6 counties?
I am blissfully ignorant of the background behind the IRA. It was just a comment that I heard on NPR (and attributed as such - the first part of that sentence reads, "I heard a segment on NPR the other day about how...")

- David Stein