Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (101453)	6/13/2003 9:06:16 PM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Bilow, it does sound like guerilla warfare. nytimes.com The Next War By MICHAEL R. GORDON BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 13 — After American M-1 tanks rolled into Baghdad to depose Saddam Hussein, one of the central military questions was where the United States might fight next. Would American forces continue their march to Syria? Or would the Bush administration step up the military and political pressure on Iran? Two months after the battle for Baghdad, we now know the answer: the next fight is in Iraq. The American thrust to Baghdad toppled Mr. Hussein. But it also set the stage for a long, hot summer during which American commanders hope to consolidate their victory by hunting the die-hards from the old regime. This struggle pits American forces against an array of Baathists, paramilitary fighters, former Iraqis soldiers and a steady trickle of Arab militants who seem to have to come to Iraq for the express purpose of killing American troops. Unlike the rush to Baghdad, this fight will not be measured in days but in months, if not years. Nor will it be decided in the nation's power center — the Iraqi capital. The new battleground includes the capital but also extends north of Baghdad and well to the west, areas that American forces did not cover in substantial numbers during the war. For the Americans, this is a campaign of raids, bombing strikes and dragnets, as American commanders try to isolate and destroy remnants of the old regime. It is more like a counterinsurgency than an invasion. The Americans' goal is to keep the pressure on and whittle down their foes until a new Iraqi authority is able to maintain order. For the Americans' adversaries, this is a war of ambushes, sniping attacks and bombings. Their goal is to bleed the Americans in the hope that they will decide that Iraq is more of a snare than a prize, and leave. This week, it is the Americans who have the initiative. In the west, it was the Americans who started the fight, but the outcome was similarly one-sided. By one count, nearly 70 militants, including fighters in Arab dress, were killed in a Thursday raid on a militants' training camp 90 miles northwest of Baghdad. One wounded militant was reportedly taken into custody. American soldiers seized a cache of SA-7 antiaircraft missiles, rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47's. This raid began when American F-16's dropped satellite-guided bombs. Then American Special Operational Forces and forces from the 101st Airborne Division attacked. An American Army ranger was wounded in the leg, and an AH-64 attack helicopter was shot down, though the crew members escaped injury. There were other operations. Near Kirkuk, soldiers from the Army's 173rd Airborne Brigade captured 74 people suspected of being militants and Al Qaeda sympathizers. Near Balad, troops from the Fourth Infantry Division continued to round up suspect Baathists. There are several reasons why the fighting in Iraq has continued. Many of the Americans' foes have no future in a post-Saddam Iraq. They were tied to the old order and still harbor dreams of driving out the Americans and returning to power. Mr. Hussein is not believed to be directing their efforts and is not even known to be alive. But he is still provides a rallying point for former members of his Baath Party. According to American military officials, many of them have been plotting their return as part of a movement called the "Return Party." Iraq has also become something of a magnet for Syrian and other Arab militants who want to attack Americans. There is no need to plan attacks against American troops in Saudi Arabia or American sailors in remote Persian Gulf ports. Some 140,000 American troops are now in Iraq, living in and around the major cities and conducting patrols along the roads. Geography is another factor. Iraq is a larger country and there are many hiding places. American forces are only now venturing west and north of Baghdad in substantial numbers. As the Americans fan out, they will increasingly encounter armed resistance. There is not new resistance. This is old resistance that the American troops here are only now taking on as they extend their reach in Iraq. This is not a fight that allied commanders expect to settle with a single hammer blow. The American assessment is that much of the resistance is organized. That is clear from the signaling systems that enemy fighters use in towns like Falluja to notify their fighters of the approach of American troops, the leaflets that have been found promising rewards for Iraqis who attack American troops, the ambushes that Iraqi fighters try to set for American troops and the enemy camp in the west. But American officers do not believe that the assaults are controlled by a single enemy commander or organization. American military commanders, in fact, seem to be trying to prepare the public for a campaign that could be prolonged and in which progress is not at linear as the expeditious march toward Baghdad. "As we have actionable intelligence, we will strike hard, and that will cause the enemy to react," Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, the chief allied commander here, said on Thursday. "The cycle has been and will be for some time: action, reaction, counteraction."