I think this commentary is nonsense. If half the army was still loyal to Saddam, the Ba'athists might have put up a respectable fight against the Americans instead of melting like butter, at least enough to save their honor, and wouldn't have to be relying on imported jihadists now.
I disagree. Why on earth should they fight a war on our terms, in a way that would assure their death and defeat? Their only hope was the kind of war that is being fought right now.
The weakness of the current Ba'athist positions is that they don't have a classic guerilla army, one that is made from the people and can melt back into the people, with the possible exception of places like Tikrit and Falujah, Saddam's old strongholds. They are relying on imports and Al Qaida instead.
I agree that this is a weakness. My suspicion is that there is more Saddam support in the country than we are led to believe. But not a majority, or even close to it, and that is a huge difference between this insurgency and Vietnam, where support for Ho was 80-90% even in the South.
But I don't know how much of this is Saddam supporters, Al Qaeda people, or people who just don't want the US there. It could be all three.
I also disagree with you that al qaeda--or whoever is doing this--has "failed tomake much headway attacking Americans." I think they have made as much headway as they want for now. It only will take a steady drip for them to succeed. Keeps the soldiers edgey, they make mistakes, they do bad things to locals (as they have been, in addition to some good things). Keeps people at home feeling nickel and dimed to death. At some point there will be a big explosion, killing more than just a few people. then the shit really hits the fan.
this war isn't just a haphazard operation, IMHO, just people lashing out indiscriminately. I think they know what they're doing, even when they "melted away like butter."
All JMHO, of course. |
