Here's the breakdown:
- Three groups of Sunni Muslims, almost all of whom are Iraqis, and
- Muqtada al-Sadr's militia, formed of Shiite Muslims, Iraq's largest social grouping.
Broken down even further, here's our enemy (quote continues):
- The largest insurgent bloc is composed of Iraqi nationalists fighting to reclaim secular power lost when Saddam Hussein was deposed in April 2003.
- The second is a growing faction of hardcore fighters aligned with terrorist groups, mainly that led by Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The U.S. military believes they want to turn Iraq into an anti-Western stronghold that would export Islamic revolution to other countries in the region.
- A third group consists of conservative Iraqis who want to install an Islamic theocracy, but who stay away from terror tactics like car bombings and the beheading of hostages.
- The fourth, al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, seeks to make the cleric the nationwide Shiite leader.
Don't forget to toss in some unrelated gangsters and "ordinary criminals." Like the ones who kidnap and behead people. So, who's winning the war? Not us.
Hoffman and other independent experts feel the insurgents are succeeding, with death tolls spiraling and a guerrilla-induced climate of fear that has reduced the U.S.-led rebuilding effort to a shambles.
What does the Administration have to say?
History is replete with insurgencies that failed," one general said privately during a discussion of Iraq.
Check that against the reality:
History is also replete with insurgencies that triumphed. Vietnamese guerrillas ousted the United States in 1973. Afghan militias similarly embarrassed the Soviet Union in 1989.
What will happen to Iraq if the insurgents succeed?
If Iraqi insurgents succeed in toppling the U.S.-backed government, analysts believe the stark differences in the groups' goals could lead to a civil war that might break Iraq into rival fiefs.
Who's to blame for this mess?
Bad decisions by the U.S.-led occupation administration are widely blamed for stoking the war. Those cited most often are the disbanding of the Iraqi army and the banning of Saddam's political leaders from public life, both of which are said to have converted potential allies into enemies.
What are our chances?
Independent analysts say 16 months of escalating warfare by U.S. troops with little practical experience in fighting insurgents have made clear the difficulty of defeating militants who mount attacks while hiding and moving among civilians...The analysts say the most promising chance for victory lies in U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces. U.S. and Iraqi troops reclaimed the city of Samarra from insurgents over the weekend, but it's unclear how much fighting was done by the Iraqis.
"The United States can buy the Iraqi government time to get organized, but the U.S. has become too unpopular and lost too much support among the population to be able to itself win a counterinsurgency campaign," Dobbins said.
Note that our last two attempts at counterinsurgency failed.
The U.S. military has few homegrown models for counterinsurgency success. Its last two major campaigns - in Somalia in 1993 and in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s - failed. Both times, a tenacious enemy fought hard enough to force U.S. troops from its soil. No one has said Iraqi insurgents are as tough as the Communist Viet Cong, and the United States had little incentive to stay in Somalia once militias made things difficult. "Vietnam was not easy, but it was certainly far less complex and more straightforward," Hoffman said.
Ask yourself, who got us into this war? Then ask yourself if he deserves another term as President? Does he deserve to have the power to bring your child into this war? Is it wise to give it to him?
[link via Steve Gilliard]
