Friday, August 8, 2003

previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (1)


Thoughts on the Iraqi resistance

My all-time favorite Simpsons line comes at the end of an episode when Marge repeatedly tries to offer what the moral of the story was. At which point the following exchange takes place:

Marge: Well... Then I guess the moral is the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Lisa: Perhaps there is no moral to this story.
Homer: Exactly! Just a bunch of stuff that happened.

I bring this up in the wake of recent attacks, bombings, and assorted mayhem in Baghdad. Military spokesman, pundits, journalists, and yes, bloggers, are trying to fashion a coherent narrative to events on the ground (e.g., "Islamic terrorism is on the rise")when there may not be one, for two reasons:

1) There are disparate narratives across the country. One can acknowledge the chaos in Baghdad while still pointing out that market forces and first-hand accounts suggest that resistance is fading in other parts of the country.

2) There are disparate actors involved in the violent resistance. It seems increasing clear that Mickey Kaus and Hassam Fattah are correct in pointing out that there exist multiple forms of organized and disorganized resistance. There are a couple of sources for attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq -- Baathists, foreign terrorists, radical Shiites, tribal chiefs, Al Qaeda infiltrators, etc. Juan Cole provides a list of possible suspects, including Ahmed Chalabi, which seems like a hell of a stretch to me.

Another wrinkle in this mix is that areas like the Sunni Triangle -- in which U.S. forces exercise precarious control -- are more likely to experience violence. Stathis Kayvas' work on this subject is particularly illuminating. One summary of his research contains this point:

violence is likely to be motivated more
by petty everyday personal and local disputes than by grand impersonal hatreds; few people engage in acts of direct violence (e.g. killings) but many people engage in acts of indirect violence (e.g. denunciations); and people tend to willingly engage in indirectly violent behavior during civil wars because they tend to be strongly disinclined to engage in directly violent behavior in general.

My point? A lot of stuff is happening, and I doubt any single narrative will be able to explain it.

Developing....

UPDATE: Josh Marshall has some similar thoughts on this issue.

posted by Dan on 08.08.03 at 11:04 AM




Comments:

It took about 3 months for the administration to even admit there is organized guerrilla resistance. Now we're slowly waking up to the fact that it isn't just Ba'athists and "dead enders" as we were so sure was the case. At issue is that the surprises keep coming. It's A! No! It's B! Oh wait a minute, we may have a slew of B's, C's and maybe some E's to deal with. No D's sighted so far. Add to that the change in tactics "Maybe the iron fist was the wrong strategy" and I just have to wonder what surprises in store for us over the next few months.

posted by: John on 08.08.03 at 11:04 AM [permalink]



I think the tiny string that puts these things together is that there may be small groups of resistance who have no influence but are building a foundation for larger resistance. I always thought we might lose Iraq, because of counterattacks like the Russians in Chechnya. A better argument may be that these small groups may be aided by a decline in quality of life issues, water, electricity (much like the capuciano revolution in Serbia)that leads to wider rejection of American forces. Having said all that I could agree that there may be no final story since the Shiites enjoyed no real benefits under Saddam and would be happy to put down a small Sunni rebellion for us. But how long can people last without services?

posted by: Kombiz on 08.08.03 at 11:04 AM [permalink]



Excellent post.

We know that Baathists are paying for dead American soldiers, we know that the Al-Queda affiliate Ansar-al-Islam is regrouping to take revenge on Americans, and we know that foreign fighters have been captured and killed recently in Iraq.

Fortunately, the solution for each group is the same -- hunt them down and kill or capture them. Our military seems to be doing this with greater efficiency now.

posted by: Ryan Booth on 08.08.03 at 11:04 AM [permalink]



I agree. From my son's letters and phone calls from Baghdad, there's no single narrative right now: one day joking with Iraqis, another day gunfire. One day kicking down doors, another day marriage proposals from giggling Iraqi girls.

But we haven't put enough money and resources into doing a lot of things: especially putting out our message. It took us too long to get TV up, and even now it's too few hours of marginal programming.

posted by: klaatu on 08.08.03 at 11:04 AM [permalink]



A search of the histories of occupational forces teaches us that these events are normal in the course of human events. Just look at occupied Germany following WW 2. Things did'nt calm down until 1947.

posted by: john cheeseman on 08.08.03 at 11:04 AM [permalink]



I always laugh when I read that "Iraqi citizens are coming to arms in resistance against their neo-colonialsist and imperialistic oppressors!"

Yeah...beacuse the average Iraqi just happens to have rocket grenade launchers and stinger missiles lying around the house. "C'mon Achmed! Grab the RPGs next to the good china in the kitchen and we'll go kick some American ass! Alluha Akbar!"

Get real...the "people" of Iraq aren't the ones blowing up embassies either...let's get a little perspective here!

posted by: Brian on 08.08.03 at 11:04 AM [permalink]



As normal as these events some how they didn't figure into the post-war planning of the US government. Why are we suprised that 150,000 troops are inadequit when equilvent nation building exercises in Bosnia and Kosovo when scaled up to Iraq scale would run between 258,000 (Bosnia level) - 526,000 (Kosovo-level)troops? Why will no one fess to the educated guess that the occupation is going to run $21 -$36 billion if Balkans operations costs are scaled up?
(The numbers above are reported in slate and derived from work by James Dobbins, author of America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq )


Politics I guess...

posted by: john kealy on 08.08.03 at 11:04 AM [permalink]



Kombiz wrote:
But how long can people last without services?

From what I've heard, during Saddam's day, he took electricity from 80% of the country for the benefit of Baghdad. Now, the 80% get to keep their electricity and Baghdad gets the short end of the stick.

The media's in Baghdad, so they think what happens in Baghdad is what's happening everywhere. The rest of the country is already better off.

posted by: Jabba the Nutt on 08.08.03 at 11:04 AM [permalink]



Exactly right. Many of the incidents in Baghdad, & the anti-American comments that make TV news, come from the wealthy, privileged areas like the Mansur district which prospered under the old regime. And most of the attacks on the US troops are in the Sunni triangle.

Re: changes in tactics, inevitably they have to adapt to a fluid and changeable situation on the ground. Some local commanders will do better than others at forging working relationships with locals, some local situations are more "relateable" than others.

Are there attempts to form a wider, loose network of attackers. Probably. Is that a bad thing from our point of view? Not necessarily. The more organized they are the easier it is for our forces to identify, counter and neutralize them over time.

posted by: rkb on 08.08.03 at 11:04 AM [permalink]



Jabba,

I guess that was actually a celebration in Basra earlier this week. That damn BBC made it look like a riot for water and electricity.

posted by: MacMan on 08.08.03 at 11:04 AM [permalink]






Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:




Comments:


Remember your info?





Politics, economics, globalization, academia, pop culture... all from a untenured tenured perspective

Main home page
Main blog page
About Me
Search My Blog
Favorite Blogs
Book Recommendations
Books of the Month (Summer 2008)






Reviews of DanielDrezner.com:

"Sharp but informal commentary on politics and foreign policy." -- The New Republic

"Dan Drezner is terrific.... Excellent blog." -- Andrew Sullivan

"Dan's stuff is always worth reading." -- Eugene Volokh

"One of the essential weblogs." -- Gawker.com

"Old battle horse of the blogosphere." -- Jewcy.com

"Soft porn." -- Amitai Etzioni

"Spawned grave atrocities and vast destruction." -- Glenn Greenwald

"Monday morning quarterback... conservative robot... the very foundation of troubles in this country." -- not-so-random readers


Contact me at:
ddrezner@gmail.com
(But click here to read my e-mail policy)









Search the Site


Try advanced site search









Favorite Blogs

TNR's Open University
Jacob Levy
Glenn Reynolds
Andrew Sullivan
Mickey Kaus
Virginia Postrel
The Volokh Conspiracy
Josh Marshall
Crooked Timber
OxBlog
Real Clear Politics
Kevin Drum
Across the Aisle
Economist's Free Exchange
TNR's The Plank
NRO's The Corner
TAP's Tapped
America Abroad
Duck of Minerva
Opinio Juris
Brad DeLong

Jeff Jarvis
Mystery Pollster
Mark Kleiman
Meryl Yourish
Megan McArdle
Marginal Revolution
Michael Munger
Chris Lawrence
Matthew Yglesias
Hit and Run
Cold Spring Shops
Stephen Green
Outside the Beltway
Pejman Yousefzadeh
Laura McKenna (11D)
Elected Swineherd
Phil Carter
Joe Gandelman
Winds of Change
Andrew Samwick
Greg Mankiw
Dani Rodrik
Roger L. Simon
Tom Maguire
Greg Djerejian
The American Scene
Post Global
Democracy Arsenal




Recent articles online

"Foreign Policy Goes Glam."
The National Interest, November/December 2007

"Rise of the Hipster Statesmen."
Newsweek International, November 1, 2007

"The New New World Order."
Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007

"Mind the Gap."
The National Interest, January/February 2007

"The Grandest Strategy Of Them All."
Washington Post, December 17, 2006

U.S. Trade Strategy: Free Versus Fair
Council on Foreign Relations Press, September 2006.

Complete online article archive




Blog Archives

June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002

Academia
Area studies
Book club
culture
economics
fence-sitting
from Blogger
globalization
homeland security
international relations
law
Mediasphere
My very important posts
New Republic
outsourcing
personal
politics
Sports
The blog paper
the blogosphere
thesis ideas
Trade and Development
U.S. foreign policy
website maintenance

See full archives listing




Recent Entries

Someone keep Fleet Street away from Bill Clinton
It rivals Buckley vs. Vidal, I tell you
So.... are the Clintons morons?
The New York Times didn't ask me, but then again, that's why I have this blog
Monica Crowley's jet black pot
Al Qaeda is losing
Speaking of karma....
The blog post that writes itself
What made me laugh today
Where should Hillary go?




Site Credits