Iraqi resistance to occupation is growing

The brave Iraqi people contine to resist the occupiers, as the US-UK forces are sucked ever deeper into a quagmire…

Resistance to occupation is growing

US and British troops are being sucked into an Iraqi quagmire

While attention has focused on the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, growing evidence that the war is far from over has been overlooked. Fighting with real weapons is on the increase. A sudden upsurge in violence in the past couple of weeks has killed at least 10 American soldiers and wounded more than 25 in a series of attacks against checkpoints and military convoys. Iraqi fighters yesterday brought down an Apache helicopter in the west of the country. Far more more numerous than these incidents is the unpublicised number of attacks on American positions that do not injure or kill soldiers. Attacks occur daily - more than a dozen every day in the past week, according to some accounts. Troops patrolling even the calmest neighbourhoods in Baghdad still wear bullet-proof jackets and Kevlar helmets and raise their rifles, finger on the trigger, whenever approached. Attack helicopters are flying low over Baghdad day and night without lights. The most experienced combat units from the 3rd Infantry, deployed away from home since September, have now been sent in to deal with Falluja, a town at the centre of a steadily growing resistance in the Sunni Muslim heartland just west of Baghdad.

Hostile residents are not shy of threatening more attacks, insisting they are not Saddam loyalists but angry at the US military occupation. Aggressive house searches and the killing by US troops of 18 protesters in a demonstration last month have provoked fury. Soldiers on the ground say the attacks they are facing, mostly from rocket-propelled grenades and mortars, are disciplined and skilled, not the random shootings of angry civilians. American generals admit that though the attacks may be locally organised there is no evidence yet of a reformed Ba’ath party centrally coordinating the assaults. Their response has been to saturate problem areas with large numbers of combat troops. Even senior officers admit now that security in Iraq, more than two months after the fall of the regime, will get worse before it gets better. America’s generals, happy to boast about the rapid defeat of Saddam’s regime, now admit the war is far from over. In Baghdad yesterday Lieutenant General David McKiernan, commander of US ground forces in Iraq, said his troops would be needed for a long time to come, that Baghdad and a large swathe of northern and western Iraq is only a “semi-permissive” environment, and that “subversive forces” are still active. Should all this be so surprising? The US and Britain said they came to liberate Iraq and protect its people. The failure to understand how Iraqis would respond may be rooted in arrogance. It is also a colossal failure in intelligence which may prove to be at least as important as the inability to find any of Iraq’s banned weapons. The commander of British forces in the war, Air Marshal Brian Burridge, admitted as much in remarkably frank evidence to MPs this week. Asked about the problems of “policing” Iraq, and the number of forces needed to do the job, he replied: “I’m not sure we understand yet.”

Burridge confirmed that British military commanders were expecting - on the basis of intelligence - that the Iraqi army would offer to help US and UK troops maintain law and order after the invasion. This hopelessly naive advice came from the CIA. Judging by what Britain’s commanders say, MI6 appeared to have done nothing to disabuse them. Iraqi distrust of the foreign invaders seems to have come as a complete surprise. British forces, charged with securing Basra and the southern oilfields, had an easier task than US forces in the rest of the country. Yet this did not prevent British commanders from contrasting their approach with that of the Americans. The new chief of defence staff, General Sir Michael Walker, reminded the Commons defence committee that British forces have been conducting operations “around the world since world war two”. However, such prowess did not encourage British commanders to volunteer to send troops from southern Iraq to help the Americans elsewhere. They are seriously concerned about overstretch and, as important, about getting bogged down deeper in the quagmire. The US admits it had to revise drastically the number of troops it needed within weeks of the fall of Baghdad, as looting, armed robberies, rapes, kidnapping, and carjackings multiplied. The arrival of the US army’s 1st Armoured Division was brought forward, the departure of the 3rd Infantry Division, which led the invasion from Kuwait, delayed. US troops are now being sucked into Iraq much deeper than they imagined, or were told.

Villagers enraged and baffled by American show of force](http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=415516)

US troops accused of indiscriminate use of firepower in countering guerrilla attacks

US troops, in their largest military operation since the end of the war, are trying to stamp out resistance in farming villages along the Tigris river north of Baghdad, but their massive use of firepower has infuriated Iraqis in the area.

“I suppose it was a successful operation from the American point of view,” said Salah al-Jaburi bitterly as he pointed to two bloodstained quilts on which two men died when US troops had tried to arrest them in the middle of the night in the village of Aldhluaia, earlier in the week.

The quilts were on display beside a tent where several hundred villagers had gathered to mourn three men from Aldhluaia killed in “Operation Peninsula Strike” during which 4,000 US soldiers last week occupied a string of prosperous fruit-growing villages near the town of Balad, 60 miles north of the capital.

Mawlud al-Jaburi, who was arrested along with 450 other people, said he was mystified why Aldhluaia had been singled out. “We were pleased when Saddam fell,” he insisted. “We have not fired a single bullet at the Americans.” According to Mr Jaburi, all the villagers are members of the large Jubur tribe, which had been out of favour with Saddam Hussein for the last 12 years because senior officers from the tribe were involved in two attempted coups against him.

The purpose of Peninsula Strike, which started on Monday, appears to have been to lay on a massive display of force to show that the US is truly in control of central Iraq, in the wake of a series of pin-prick guerrilla attacks that have left 40 American soldiers dead since the beginning of May. If so, the operation has been counter-productive. “Before I was afraid of Saddam. Now I am afraid of the Americans,” said Mohammed, an elderly farmer too frightened to give his family name.

It is not clear how many Iraqis were killed in the operation. On Friday a US spokesman said 27 Iraqis had been killed after a group of fighters fired rocket-propelled grenades at a tank, although officers on the ground gave a much lower figure. The Americans counter-attacked with Bradley fighting vehicles and Apache helicopters. Although there have been very few guerrilla attacks, US troops are responding to any perceived threat by immediate use of their overwhelming firepower.

The official American reports of the search operation chillingly resemble those issued at the height of the Vietnam war, with all the dead described as enemy combatants. No American soldiers were killed or wounded.

**One of the three dead being mourned in Aldhluaia yesterday was Hashim Alawi, a fisherman who thought some men on a boat on the Tigris were thieves trying to steal his boat, moored by the side of the river. He fired his hunting rifle in their direction. In fact he was shooting at a boatload of American soldiers, who shot back and killed him.

There is other evidence of indiscriminate use of force by the Americans. Outside Aldhluaia a driver called Mohammed Rassim al-Jawari took us to a blue-painted Russian jeep in which the front seat was still covered with dried blood. His cousin died when a soldier fired 30 bullets through the bonnet and windscreen of the vehicle.

One explanation for American aggression is that their commanders see the possession of arms as a sign of hostility to the occupation. But Iraqi farmers are always armed, usually with AK-47 machine guns. Mawlud al-Juburi said: “They didn’t find any heavy weapons. Most of what they took away are AK-47s, which we need to protect ourselves. I always carry one when I go into my fields at night.”**

The sporadic shootings at American troops seem to be spontaneous, and not organised by any centrally directed guerrilla force. But Peninsula Strike and other operations like it are beginning to create an angry mood and a desire for revenge. That can only benefit those who want to drive out the Americans by force.

‘An Army Of Occupation’
The celebrated reporter of the Independent of London, just out of Iraq, .on the rising opposition to U.S. forces in Iraq, the so-called road map to Middle East peace & Israel’s assassination attempt of Hamas leader Abdel Azziz Rantizzi.

AMY GOODMAN, DEMOCRACY NOW!

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20030613&fname=fisk&sid=1&pn=1

On June 11, 2003, Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman interviewed Robert Fisk, reporter with the Independent newspaper of London. He recently left Iraq where he was chronicling the rising resistance to the U.S. occupation. Ten American soldiers have been killed in ambushes across Iraq in the past 15 days including one yesterday in Baghdadwho was attacked with rocket propelled grenades. Fallujah has been a hotbed of Iraqi resistance since April when U.S. troops fired into large crowds of civilians twice killing at least 18 people. Democracy Now! is a national listener-sponsored radio and television program.

Amy Goodman: Robert Fisk, can you talk more about what you found there?

Robert Fisk: I don’t think I’ve ever seen a clearer example of an army that thought it was an army of liberation and has become an army of occupation. It’s important perhaps to say – I did mention it in [a recent] article that a number of those soldiers who were attached to the 3rd infantry division who were military policeman, American ordinary cops, like one from Rhode Island, for example – they had a pretty shrewd idea of what was going on.

You got different kinds of behavior from the Americans. You got this very nice guy, Phil Cummings, who was a Rhode Island cop, very sensitive towards people, didn’t worry if people shouted at him. He remained smiling. He just said that if people throw rocks at me or stones at me, I give them candies. There was another soldier who went up to a middle aged man sitting on a seat and he said, “If you get out of that seat, I’ll break your neck,” and there was quite a lot of language like that as well.

There were good guys as well as bad guys among the Americans as there always are in armies, but the people who I talked to, the sergeants and captains and so on – most of them acknowledge that something had gone wrong, that this was not going to be good.

One guy said to me, every time we go down to the river here – he was talking about the river area in Fallujah – it’s a tributary of the Tigris – it’s like Somalia down there. You always get shot at and you always get stoned, I mean, have stones thrown at them.

Some of the soldiers spoke very frankly about the situation in Baghdad. One man told me – I heard twice before in Baghdad itself, once from a British Commonwealth diplomat and once from a fairly senior officer in what we now have to call the coalition, C.P.A., the Coalition – for the moment forces or whatever it’s called – Authority, the authority that’s hanging on there until they can create some kind of Iraqi government --they all say that Baghdad airport now comes under nightly sniper fire from the perimeter of the runways from Iraqis.

Two of them told me that every time a military aircraft comes in at night, it’s fired at. In fact some of the American pilots are now going back to the old Vietnamese tactic of cork screwing down tightly on to the runways from above rather than making the normal level flight approach across open countryside because they’re shot at so much. It’s a coalition provisional authority I’m thinking of, the C.P.A., previously an even more long fangled name. There is a very serious problem of security.

The Americans still officially call them the remnants of Saddam or terrorists.

Since 1 May (and according to US figures) some 40 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq - a clear demonstration of how resistance is growing rapidly against the American occupiers.

US forces threatened in power vacuum](BBC NEWS | Middle East | US forces threatened in power vacuum)

Iraqi's have a right to be frustrated, money needs to get to these people so they can support themselves and their families.

What ever right or justification the US came up with to invade or "rescue" Iraq is one issue, but the place is becoming more like West Bank or Gaza.

Now I wonder where would we drive the Iraqis?

Iraq ‘too dangerous to rebuild’, BBC, 18 June 2003

British and American troops have to get a grip on Baghdad because lawlessness is hampering attempts to rebuild Iraq, the UK’s international development secretary has warned.

Baroness Amos is so concerned about the dangerous security situation in the Iraqi capital she has postponed a trip there. The cabinet minister told the Financial Times the coalition had failed to anticipate the extent of problems in the aftermath of Saddam Hussein.

Baroness Amos’s concerns came days after the Home Office declared Iraq was safe enough for it to start asking asylum seekers to return.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Iraqi's have a right to be frustrated...
[/QUOTE]

Yes, especially over the fact that they were promised "liberation" and freedom, and when they demonstrate for these they are routinely shot at or shot down by trigger happy US soldiers.

Malik, The fact is it's still a war zone there, the people that are attacking U.S. soldiers fire within groups of crowds, behind children and women. These are people who supported Saddams regime and care little about the Iraqi people, just today they fired on an ambulance killing 1. It's a mess out there and work needs to be done by both sides to make liberation and freedom real, without security neither exists.

** “Iraqi resistance to occupation is growing” **

Maybe so. But it is not representative of the viewpoints of the vast majority of the Iraqi people.

The independent Iraqi Institute of Strategic Studies, polled 1,100 people between June 8 and 10 and reported as follows:

** “73 percent felt the Americans had not brought security to the capital, but only 17 percent said they should leave forthwith. Around 51 percent wanted them to stay until a permanent government can be elected.” **

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2956685

The principal violent opposition appears to be Baathist Party Members who have been purged from jobs, ex-soldiers in Saddam’s army who are now out of jobs, and Saddam loyalists. This should not come as any great surprise to anyone.

Lies that no one believes…not the Iraqi’s nor international organisations.

U.S. should investigate it’s use of force at Falluja: HRW](http://www.gupistan.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109207)

The right to resist, Seumas Milne, The Guardian, 19 June 2003

…what they cannot by any sensible reckoning be called are terrorists - nor does the US have any right to try guerillas who attack occupation troops as criminals, which Bremer announced it plans to do this week. It is an almost universally accepted principle that a people occupied by a foreign power has the right to use armed force to resist - though whether force will be the best tactic is another matter. It was the crudest self-delusion on the part of the invading states to imagine that because most Iraqis wanted an end to the Saddam regime they would accept the imposition of a foreign occupation to replace it.