“Red on Red”

Insurgents have had enough with the Insurgents. And it’s about time.

Article


“The brutal acts of violence directed at civilians and Iraqi police is losing favor among some of the members of the Iraqi insurgency. During Operation Matador, we saw examples of the local tribes, some of whom are sympathetic or even participating in the insurgency, rise up to fight the foreign jihadis after their attempts to impose a Taliban-like rule of law in Western Anbar. Today’s New York Times reports further cases of ‘red-on-red’, AKA the enemy fighting amongst themselves. The Marines gladly watched as insurgents duked it out along the Syrian border….”

“…Late Sunday night, American marines watching the skyline from their second-story perch in an abandoned house here saw a curious thing: in the distance, mortar and gunfire popped, but the volleys did not seem to be aimed at them. In the dark, one spoke in hushed code words on a radio, and after a minute found the answer. "Red on red," he said, using a military term for enemy-on-enemy fire.

Marines patrolling this desert region near the Syrian border have for months been seeing a strange new trend in the already complex Iraqi insurgency. Insurgents, they say, have been fighting each other in towns along the Euphrates from Husayba, on the border, to Qaim, farther west. The observations offer a new clue in the hidden world of the insurgency and suggest that there may have been, as American commanders suggest, a split between Islamic militants and local rebels…”


Please read the entire article, its very telling. Its looks like the civilians and Insurgents are getting sick and tired of outside influence and blowing each other up. That’s great news. It’s about time maybe some of these people boot the extremist types with their non-Iraqi interest driven jihads and agendas.

Score one for the good guys!!!

So the insurgents are now the good guys, skippy? Even if they return the next day to fire an RPG at a US convoy?

Originally posted by cargo
So the insurgents are now the good guys, skippy? Even if they return the next day to fire an RPG at a US convoy?

Insurgents arent the good guys. The non insurgents, i.e. civilians of Iraq and the coalition forces are the good guys. This is a major victory for the good guys, how can you not see that?

Arn't the insurgents also civilians of Iraq?

Originally posted by cargo
Arn't the insurgents also civilians of Iraq?

Nope. The moment they pick up a gun and start shooting thier own people and blowing them up they certainly arent.

That is by your definition, skippy. That's all. I don't think some Iraqi insurgent is going to care much about your view of him.

Which brings me to the point. There are no good guys and bad guys. This is all subjective perception.

Good day.

The trouble with this is that when the infighting ends they will re-org and be a more deadly threat than before. You really don't need these guys to get rid of all the different factions and groups in Iraq and having just one group running the show. Yes, you will have a breather whilst the infighting goes on but when they stop killing each other and work out which group is in charge they will become perhaps more organized than before.
What the US hasn't realized yet is that Terrorism cannot be defeated by conventional means, you can do as many Operations against these insurgents with regular troops as you want but you ain't going to defeat them by conventional means.
The only way to make any head way against Terrorists is to use the tactics Britain used in Northern Ireland. By a combination of good intel and the use of Special Forces and local oposition groups UVF etc we were able to fight them to a stand still. See your own Project Pheonix and the UK 14 intel "the debt " and SAS ops in Northern Ireland for examples.
But, and this is the kicker, it has been proved time and time again that an ocupation force will not win against a well motivated well planned insurgency, see Vietnam, Northern Ireland, War of Independence the list goes on. The best we can hope for is a Honorable withdrawal in maybe 10 - 12 years time when all other Military Options have been exhausted, yes i did say 10 - 12 years. The US - UK are in this for the long haul, anyone who thinks other wise is deluding them selves


By the way i was looking at this from a Military point of view, i do not condone the use of death squad and neutralization Ops such as Project Phoenix and 14 intels little games in NI. But the fact is they do work Militarily.

For more info about 14 Intelligence Company Ops in Northern Ireland see here.

For info regarding the Pheonix Program see here.

[edit on 23-6-2005 by Janus]

Hopefully they will wipe themselves out, leaving the Iraqis actually interested in rebuilding thier country alone to get to work.

This is the a turn for the best though. Devide and Conquer.

Some might even call it a civil war yeah! one for the good guys

The nationalist insurgency (i.e. "US out of Iraq!") will start to realize that the jihadist insurgency ("death to infidels!") is far worse and more psychotic than US occupation. Like how, in the end, the most extreme of the Jacobinian revolutionaries were worse than the French monarchy.

It is inevitable that the US will leave Iraq sooner or later. They don't live there.
Sooner is better, but who knows.

With the jihadists they will have a permanent terror.

The jihadists don't care about the future of Iraq except as fodder for religious fanaticism and fodder for eternal global war.

Originally posted by mbkennel

The nationalist insurgency (i.e. "US out of Iraq!") will start to realize that the jihadist insurgency ("death to infidels!") is far worse and more psychotic than US occupation. Like how, in the end, the most extreme of the Jacobinian revolutionaries were worse than the French monarchy.

It is inevitable that the US will leave Iraq sooner or later. They don't live there.
Sooner is better, but who knows.

With the jihadists they will have a permanent terror.

The jihadists don't care about the future of Iraq except as fodder for religious fanaticism and fodder for eternal global war.

There wont be any fairy tail ending to this one where the Insurgents lay down their weapons and embrace western democracy. Pandoras Box is well and truly open and it will be a hell of a job closing it again. For them its not just a War against what they see as as an occupying force but also a religious undertaking. I believe the US and UK are facing a worse enemy than the French and US faced in Vietnam and the UK faced in Palatine and Aden.
This is going to be a long and bloody business.

Couldnt it just be the civil war between religous groups starting to flare up?

I mean, the US Gvt has been expecting this for a while.

how many Innocent civilians have been killed because the US thought they were INSURGENTS?

Isnt it likely dead Iraqi's on the ground, all now resemble insurgents to the US army?

Your either alive.... or an insurgent!

[edit on 23-6-2005 by GlobalDisorder]


'sorry Tapeworm, just saw ur post'

[edit on 23-6-2005 by GlobalDisorder]

How can it be a civil war when the overwhelmingly percent of insurgents are form other nations such as Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia?
You have mostly foreigners coming to Iraq killing mostly Iraqi civilians and the Iraqi people fighting against them. I would say that's defiantly good news even if it is not wide spread.

By the way this thread is 2 days old and it has only gotten 13 replies, I wonder why?

this is definitely good news. it undermines the legitimacy of the foreign influence on the insurgency, unites the iraqi people who are insurgents , and is marking a reduced tolerance for war/carnage among the people.

now if we could only figure out whos who.

Ok i'll explain it to you guys one more time as you seem un-willing to listen.
This may be a good thing in the short term and the US may be able to exploit this in the short term. But once the in - fighting is over there will be one group or orginisation in charge of the insurgeny. That means instead of the many different groups operating now with a fragmentary command structure there will be one group pulling all the strings. That means that the command structure will be less cumbersome allowing for a more efficient insurgency.
This is not good news. You guys are grasping at straws if you think anything good will come out of this. You are looking for a silver lining where none exist.

Janus:

If the non insurgents, i.e. the actual caring civilians within Iraq, want to start to prosper and work with the government to do it, there cannot be a civil war.

Let me explain: The Insurgents fall into two categories. First you have the real Iraqis who think that fighting the USA is the only way to better Iraq, second, you have the terrorists that are influenced by radical Iraqis or foreign powers.

The first group, real Iraqis who are fighting what they see as occupation, will stop fighting if they are convinced its best for Iraq and their families. And if you choose to actually READ the article, you would learn that’s it’s these people that are turning on the radical/terrorist fighters.

The second group does not represent Iraq or Iraqi’s in any way, shape, or form. They are common thugs and extremists out for their own agendas and causes. How can there be civil war if these people aren’t fighting for Iraq? Not all of them are even Iraqis!! In another post I stated that 55% of all foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudi. You think the Saudi’s are fighting for Iraq? Nope.

There will not, and cannot be a civil war in Iraq right now. The “red on red” fighting right now is the real live Iraqis who want to better their country, versus the foreign backed terrorists out for personal gain.

And no matter what you think, this is a wonderful turn of events for Iraq. The people are starting to realize that killing themselves isn’t going to do anything and they are going after the terrorists that are causing it.

Maybe you should read the whole article