WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 (UPI) -- November was one of the deadliest months in terms of casualties -- 138 U.S. forces killed along with an unknown number of Iraqis. And December, so far, is not looking much better. First came the announcement of U.S. troop increases going up to 150,000-strong, then the carnage on Friday that left about 30 Iraqis dead. Yet, there appears to be both good news and bad news emerging from Iraq.
First the good news: U.S. military intelligence sources are hinting that they are now "seeing signs that there is a real insurgency" developing in Iraq. They indicate that the insurgents -- initially believed to be mostly foreigners and Baathists leftovers from Saddam's regime -- now seem to have a political agenda. The same sources say that the insurgents are actively trying to rid themselves of foreign fighters and of the staunchest of Saddam's loyalists. If this information is confirmed, it could be both a good sign and a bad one.
"There are signs, particularly in Ramadi, that the resistance is beginning to assert itself and ridding its ranks of the terrorists, foreign fighters, criminals, and corrupt sheikhs," military officials told United Press International.
This report coincides with the visit to Amman earlier this week by Iraq's interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, to meet with tribal leaders and "other influential Iraqis." Allawi said the reason for his visit to the Jordanian capital was to convince Sunni leaders to participate in the planned Jan. 30 elections. However, rumors have it that while in Amman Allawi met with resistance leaders, hoping to put an end to the violence, and at the same time bring the Sunnis who are active in the resistance out of the sidelines and into the political framework.
How can the fact that the insurgency is becoming more organized -- and influential -- be perceived as good news, you may ask? The answer can be found by looking for order in the chaos.
Since serious opposition to the U.S. military presence in Iraq began in earnest, no one seemed to know who these elusive insurgents really were, or for that matter, what were their intended goals, besides the obvious one. The obvious, in this case, was to indiscriminately inflict the maximum amount of casualties on Americans and Iraqis seen to cooperate with them.
Earlier reports indicated that the resistance consisted of a bizarre amalgam of Islamist fundamentalists who trekked over one of Iraq's many porous borders, from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan or Iran, for a chance to fight the "infidels" in the name of jihad. Borders that became even more porous once the Iraqi army was dissolved soon after the fall of Saddam. "We didn't bother to close the borders," former CIA analyst Mike Scheuer, the "anonymous" author of "Imperial Hubris" told UPI.
These fundamentalists found common cause with the secular remnants of the Iraqi Baath Party and some of the tens of thousands of cashiered Iraqi military.
In fighting such an unholy alliance the United States had little choice: to destroy it or be destroyed. Defeat for the United States is simply not an option. That left the first alternative; to destroy the opposition. This is what the U.S. tried to do in Fallujah. However, as was later admitted in a U.S. Marine intelligence report leaked to the New York Times, crushing the resistance in Fallujah proved unrealistic and an unattainable goal.
Once the fighting began, the resistance melted away only to resurface in other locations around the country. While the Marines were pounding away at Fallujah, the resistance carried out multiple attacks in a number of other cities, including Baghdad and Mosul. It was their way of saying "we are still here." And the man the United States wanted to nab the most, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- believed to be responsible for most of the kidnappings and beheadings of hostages -- managed to quietly slip away.
Again, you may ask, where is the good news? To find it one has to read the proverbial tealeaves. The good news can be found in reports indicating a beginning of reorganization within the resistance to filter out non-Iraqi elements, more precisely, those alien to the Iraqi Sunni community. If confirmed, that would denote that some order if starting to take shape in the great Iraqi disorder.
If indeed the resistance wants to oust the foreign elements from its ranks -- the jihadis, criminals and the Saddamists -- it can only mean that they are looking -- and planning ahead -- and, here is the cruncher: it would mean that they are fighting for recognition and inclusion in the Iraqi political system.
This modus operandi might appear somewhat strange to Western thinking and to those unfamiliar with the ways of Iraq. The idea that one would go about conducting politics through bullets in order to have a greater say with ballots might seem extraordinary. And it is. But remember, this is Iraq, not Iowa.
This behavior would indicate that the resistance is open to negotiating with the Iraqi government and is positioning itself for post-election bargaining. That is the good sign, and the good news. Because ultimately, the answer to the Iraqi crisis lies in a political deal, not in a military solution.
And now the bad news: should the above prove true, it would mean two things. First, that the jihadi insurgency will become desperate once it starts to realize it is being pushed out by the Iraqis and hunted down by the Americans. In that case, expect more violence. It should be short-lived, but could be potentially deadly.
Second, as this reporter was told by Saudi Arabian officials during a visit to the kingdom last summer, once the jihadi insurgency in Iraq starts to simmer down, expect the insurgents -- many of whom are Saudi nationals -- to begin trickling back into Saudi. While getting rid of foreign insurgents may prove to be good news for Iraq, it could be bad for Saudi Arabia. However, if what Saudi officials predicted last summer turns out to be correct, this time the Saudi authorities are better prepared to intercept them. And that is good news.
As one U.S. officer told UPI's Pentagon correspondent Pamela Hess, "In an ironic way, that may be the first step towards solving this thing."
--
(Comments may be sent to [email protected].)
