Suicide Bombers.. Not Crazy

[Lyion]

Name one single time that terrorist tactics have coerced a free society into cooperation with the perpetrator's goals. Deliberately targeting civilians is counterproductive, especially when you're attempting to wage a guerilla campaign.

You are confusing civilians and soft targets. The insurgents are bombing police recruitment lines, US convoy lines, and suicide bombing exposed areas for maximum PR exposure.

The insurgents are not attempting to wage a guerilla campaign, but are trying to effectively wage a continual PR campaign to persuade a U.S. withdrawal based on continued insurgent pressure and to promote their agenda via US and middle eastern news.

Take the time to read some of the Middle Eastern periodicals in regards to the insurgency and you'll see their current method of fighting is still effectively garnering headlines in the US and elsewhere, and promoting sympathy throughout the Arab League.

[xaoshaen]

You are confusing civilians and soft targets. The insurgents are bombing police recruitment lines, US convoy lines, and suicide bombing exposed areas for maximum PR exposure.

I think you need to review exactly what a 'civilian' is. Cops? Civilians. Mosques? Not only full of civilians but protected sites as well. The local laundry and grocery shops? Civilians.

The insurgents are not attempting to wage a guerilla campaign, but are trying to effectively wage a continual PR campaign to persuade a U.S. withdrawal based on continued insurgent pressure and to promote their agenda via US and middle eastern news.

So, what you're saying is that the terrorists are waging a guerilla campaign? Murdering the very population you're attempting to incite against the imperialist aggressors is not a winning strategy.

Take the time to read some of the Middle Eastern periodicals in regards to the insurgency and you'll see their current method of fighting is still effectively garnering headlines in the US and elsewhere, and promoting sympathy throughout the Arab League.

Most of the Middle Eastern periodicals are propaganda pieces, attempting to dictate the mood of the population, not reflect it. I can't speak for everyone throughout the Arab League, but I can tell you that on the ground, in Iraq, the terrorists are becoming more hated than the US soldiers. Incidents like Tal Afar are becoming more common.

[Lyion]

I think you need to review exactly what a 'civilian' is. Cops? Civilians. Mosques? Not only full of civilians but protected sites as well. The local laundry and grocery shops? Civilians.

Again it's the difference between a viable security target, a cop, and randomly blowing up people. The fact they are civilian makes no difference. It ties into the propaganda campaign that the insurgency is, and the targetting of places allied with the enemy that will enable a better running of said form of warfare.

The insurgents are not attempting to wage a guerilla campaign, but are trying to effectively wage a continual PR campaign to persuade a U.S. withdrawal based on continued insurgent pressure and to promote their agenda via US and middle eastern news.

So, what you're saying is that the terrorists are waging a guerilla campaign? Murdering the very population you're attempting to incite against the imperialist aggressors is not a winning strategy.

Not at all. I've already said it is a PR campaign waged against specific targets that are percieved to be allied or in support of the 'enemy'. I.e. us.

There is murdering the populace. Then there is murdering the populace that are percieved to be allied with the enemy. Obviously this is the latter and you are missing the point.

Most of the Middle Eastern periodicals are propaganda pieces, attempting to dictate the mood of the population, not reflect it. I can't speak for everyone throughout the Arab League, but I can tell you that on the ground, in Iraq, the terrorists are becoming more hated than the US soldiers. Incidents like Tal Afar are becoming more common.

Indeed, but much of that news filters to the US and the propaganda is spread throughout the world often times invoking sympathies to the terrorist via people who compare them to the Revolutionaries in the US or Mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the soviets.

The terrorists are not concerned about the Iraqis, they are concerned about their organizations, the accumulation of additiional funds to operate, and the continued free publicity and accumulation of anti US sentiment abroad.

[Ganzo]

The insurgents are not attempting to wage a guerilla campaign, but are trying to effectively wage a continual PR campaign to persuade a U.S. withdrawal based on continued insurgent pressure and to promote their agenda via US and middle eastern news.

So, what you're saying is that the terrorists are waging a guerilla campaign? Murdering the very population you're attempting to incite against the imperialist aggressors is not a winning strategy.

I just love this part, shows NT's usual line of argument

[xaoshaen]

The insurgents are not attempting to wage a guerilla campaign, but are trying to effectively wage a continual PR campaign to persuade a U.S. withdrawal based on continued insurgent pressure and to promote their agenda via US and middle eastern news.

So, what you're saying is that the terrorists are waging a guerilla campaign? Murdering the very population you're attempting to incite against the imperialist aggressors is not a winning strategy.

I just love this part, shows NT's usual line of argument

You forgot to bold the part of the sentence I was referring to, Ganzo: "but are trying to effectively wage a continual PR campaign to persuade a U.S. withdrawal based on continued insurgent pressure and to promote their agenda via US and middle eastern news". Read some Guevara and you'll see that Lyion has defined two of the primary goals of a guerilla campaign, in the same sentence he's denying the nomenclature.

[xaoshaen]

Again it's the difference between a viable security target, a cop, and randomly blowing up people. The fact they are civilian makes no difference. It ties into the propaganda campaign that the insurgency is, and the targetting of places allied with the enemy that will enable a better running of said form of warfare.

Sorry Lyion, but cops aren't simply 'viable security targets', they're civilians, protected under the rules of warfare. Once you decide to ignore those rules, you cease to become a legitimate military force and become criminals.

Not at all. I've already said it is a PR campaign waged against specific targets that are percieved to be allied or in support of the 'enemy'. I.e. us.

A guerrilla campaign is a PR campaign at heart. No other form of warfare relies so thoroughly on capturing the hearts and minds of the population. Everything you've described is absolutely typical of one doctrine of warfare: the guerrilla campaign.

There is murdering the populace. Then there is murdering the populace that are percieved to be allied with the enemy. Obviously this is the latter and you are missing the point.

Because car bombs are such precise implements? Sorry Lyion, but given the methodologies employed, this won't fly. Even if you were to engage with a more discriminatory system, it's still counterproductive to kill the very civilians you're relying on to shelter and support you.

Indeed, but much of that news filters to the US and the propaganda is spread throughout the world often times invoking sympathies to the terrorist via people who compare them to the Revolutionaries in the US or Mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the soviets.

There are stupid people everywhere. Sending a message to the people who can't distinguish propaganda from information is of dubious value at best, as you're largely preaching to the choir. It's certaintly not worth alienating the local support base you need to avoid eradication.

The terrorists are not concerned about the Iraqis, they are concerned about their organizations, the accumulation of additiional funds to operate, and the continued free publicity and accumulation of anti US sentiment abroad.

If the terrorists aren't concerned about Iraqis they're bigger fools than anyone could have imagined. You absolutely cannot prosecute an insurgency without local support. Once you alienate the populace, you are well and truly fucked.

[Minrott]

Even if you were to engage with a more discriminatory system, it's still counterproductive to kill the very civilians you're relying on to shelter and support you.

Worked for the Viet Minh and Viet Cong.


Now I am not trying to draw a parallel between the Vietnam conflict and Iraq, but there are some striking similarities between how the guerillas in each conflict conduct themselves. What didn't work, was when the US on one level or another, tried to use the same terror tactics against the civilian populace. Traditionally in all guerilla conflicts, the insurgent force is less than amiable to civilians they consider to be sympathizers or collaborators with the occupying force. Yet if such mistreatment and indiscrimination in killing is commited by both sides, the populace tends to side with the insurgent force.

For this reason above all if we desire to make any progress in Iraq, we have to take the high road and do whatever we possibly can to be the good guys in the eyes of the populace. Even if, I hate to say, it costs more US lives in the long run, otherwise all other sacrifices are null and void. Because losing the war of ideology would be the greatest loss, and make everything we've done meaningless.

[Harrison]

Even if you were to engage with a more discriminatory system, it's still counterproductive to kill the very civilians you're relying on to shelter and support you.

Worked for the Viet Minh and Viet Cong.


Now I am not trying to draw a parallel between the Vietnam conflict and Iraq, but there are some striking similarities between how the guerillas in each conflict conduct themselves. What didn't work, was when the US on one level or another, tried to use the same terror tactics against the civilian populace. Traditionally in all guerilla conflicts, the insurgent force is less than amiable to civilians they consider to be sympathizers or collaborators with the occupying force. Yet if such mistreatment and indiscrimination in killing is commited by both sides, the populace tends to side with the insurgent force.

For this reason above all if we desire to make any progress in Iraq, we have to take the high road and do whatever we possibly can to be the good guys in the eyes of the populace. Even if, I hate to say, it costs more US lives in the long run, otherwise all other sacrifices are null and void. Because losing the war of ideology would be the greatest loss, and make everything we've done meaningless.

People CAN make sense...I think this is the road to implosion of the universe.

[xaoshaen]

Worked for the Viet Minh and Viet Cong.

No, it didn't. By the end of the Vietnam War, the military situation was so desperate that the NVA and their VC allies felt compelled to launch the suicidal Tet Offensive, essentially destroying the NVA as coherent military force. When the VC were successful at generating local support, they used significantly more complex tactics then simple terror and intimidation.

Now I am not trying to draw a parallel between the Vietnam conflict and Iraq, but there are some striking similarities between how the guerillas in each conflict conduct themselves. What didn't work, was when the US on one level or another, tried to use the same terror tactics against the civilian populace. Traditionally in all guerilla conflicts, the insurgent force is less than amiable to civilians they consider to be sympathizers or collaborators with the occupying force. Yet if such mistreatment and indiscrimination in killing is commited by both sides, the populace tends to side with the insurgent force.

Actually, when allowed to use genuine coercion tactics, U.S. troops were phenomonally successful. Talk to a veteran of Operation Phoenix sometime. Such tactics were discontinued because of external concerns (both valid and otherwise), not because they didn't work. Vietnam was a substantially different environment, as the guerrilla forces were largely native to North Vietnam, and offered substantial rewards to the civilian population in addition to the threat of violence against those who cooperated with the Americans. While I frequently disagree philosophically with Guevara, his outlines for conducting a successful guerrilla campaign border on the brilliant. The NVA adhered to the cornerstones of a successful insurgency, while the terrorists in Iraq have completely ignored them.

For this reason above all if we desire to make any progress in Iraq, we have to take the high road and do whatever we possibly can to be the good guys in the eyes of the populace. Even if, I hate to say, it costs more US lives in the long run, otherwise all other sacrifices are null and void. Because losing the war of ideology would be the greatest loss, and make everything we've done meaningless.

With the increasing violence against the citizens of Iraq, the terrorists are handing America the populace on a silver platter. If we were to be Machiavellian about it, terror attacks are exactly what the new government needs in order to establish its legitimacy.

[Eziekial]

Machiavellian would be US facillitating such attacks to win support for the new government.

[Lyion]

Sorry Lyion, but cops aren't simply 'viable security targets', they're civilians, protected under the rules of warfare. Once you decide to ignore those rules, you cease to become a legitimate military force and become criminals.

Of course, but at the same time they never claimed to be a legitimate military force. They are a religious zealout organization bent on a crusade with their rules solely coming from the Koran, and somewhat eccentric leadership

A guerrilla campaign is a PR campaign at heart. No other form of warfare relies so thoroughly on capturing the hearts and minds of the population. Everything you've described is absolutely typical of one doctrine of warfare: the guerrilla campaign.

Well, their campaign is SOLELY PR. Guerilla warfare still in some regards is trying to win and to some regards stay somewhat true to military goals. Al Qaeda in Iraq is there to further there groups goals and to be more political than military, in my opinion.

Because car bombs are such precise implements? Sorry Lyion, but given the methodologies employed, this won't fly. Even if you were to engage with a more discriminatory system, it's still counterproductive to kill the very civilians you're relying on to shelter and support you.

And yet the insurgency grows in strength, and recruiting and membership is rising. How do you explain this?

There are stupid people everywhere. Sending a message to the people who can't distinguish propaganda from information is of dubious value at best, as you're largely preaching to the choir. It's certaintly not worth alienating the local support base you need to avoid eradication.

This is moreso a social issue than a news one. News filters from Iraq via the mainstream arab news channels in a very partisan way, and indeed even is presented fairly partisan here. Sadly, you have to go to a blog such as Chrenkoff to see any valid news in regards to the positives occuring in Iraq.

The social issue is that the majority of people in the region are very prone to partisan news and propaganda not so much because they are stupid, but because it is all they are getting. Likewise over here you do not hear about the huge stable areas, you get the news of the car bombs and suicide guys.

If the terrorists aren't concerned about Iraqis they're bigger fools than anyone could have imagined. You absolutely cannot prosecute an insurgency without local support. Once you alienate the populace, you are well and truly fucked.

Depends on their goals and their aims. They are waging a very effective campaign and are continuing to gain more support in the Islamic community and their core support has not faltered.

It is not about winning a war in Iraq to these people, it's about pushing a worldwide revolution.

[xaoshaen]

Of course, but at the same time they never claimed to be a legitimate military force. They are a religious zealout organization bent on a crusade with their rules solely coming from the Koran, and somewhat eccentric leadership

Blowing up civilians is bad PR. It's either done as a terrorist act, the historic folly of which has been covered, or through extreme incompetence. The threat of dead civilians is a useful tool. Actual dead bodies are a public relations nightmare.

Well, their campaign is SOLELY PR. Guerilla warfare still in some regards is trying to win and to some regards stay somewhat true to military goals. Al Qaeda in Iraq is there to further there groups goals and to be more political than military, in my opinion.

Guerrilla warfare is type of warfare, not the goal of a campaign. A pure PR campaign does not encompass bombing mosques. You might as well call the IRA a PR organization by this criteria. The instant you remove any military consideration from their actions, the term 'insurgents' no longer applies: they become terrorists, pure and simple. Once you can legitimately be reduced to terrorists, this vastly improves the public image of your enemies. Given the current political climate, it becomes very difficult for your sponsor nations to support you, neutral nations can be pressured to denounce you, and the people most likely to continue to back you are the people with the exact same belief structure: the people who already support you.

And yet the insurgency grows in strength, and recruiting and membership is rising. How do you explain this?

Look at the sources for recruits. The use of the term 'insurgent' is slightly misleading, as it's connotes indigenous resistance.

This is moreso a social issue than a news one. News filters from Iraq via the mainstream arab news channels in a very partisan way, and indeed even is presented fairly partisan here. Sadly, you have to go to a blog such as Chrenkoff to see any valid news in regards to the positives occuring in Iraq.

The social issue is that the majority of people in the region are very prone to partisan news and propaganda not so much because they are stupid, but because it is all they are getting. Likewise over here you do not hear about the huge stable areas, you get the news of the car bombs and suicide guys.

So, you're claiming the terrorists' objective is to make the average Iranian hate the U.S.? To make liberal sheeple denounce Bush's foreign policy?

Depends on their goals and their aims. They are waging a very effective campaign and are continuing to gain more support in the Islamic community and their core support has not faltered.

Really? A 'very effective campaign'? On what grounds? It's incredibly difficult to prosecute a campaign of any nature when you're dead. Without local shelter and support, dead is exactly how an insurgent force ends.

It is not about winning a war in Iraq to these people, it's about pushing a worldwide revolution.

We've heard that rhetoric before, and it didn't work out then either.

[Lyion]

Blowing up civilians is bad PR. It's either done as a terrorist act, the historic folly of which has been covered, or through extreme incompetence. The threat of dead civilians is a useful tool. Actual dead bodies are a public relations nightmare.

Common sense agrees with you, but the middle east and Islam have never been about sense. Continual strife and casualties are seen positively by the arab media, and why do we not see outright condemnation of this from the Sunni and Shi'ite religious leadership?

Dead bodies make news. People reading the news do not see the bodies, they see action against the infidels and their lapdogs! Power to Islam, we must join and help secure the holy lands!

When it happens nightly, the insurgency must be strong, and lo and behold the bandwagon people wish to be part of the crusade before its over.

Guerrilla warfare is type of warfare, not the goal of a campaign. A pure PR campaign does not encompass bombing mosques. You might as well call the IRA a PR organization by this criteria. The instant you remove any military consideration from their actions, the term 'insurgents' no longer applies: they become terrorists, pure and simple. Once you can legitimately be reduced to terrorists, this vastly improves the public image of your enemies. Given the current political climate, it becomes very difficult for your sponsor nations to support you, neutral nations can be pressured to denounce you, and the people most likely to continue to back you are the people with the exact same belief structure: the people who already support you.

Sure, you can call it guerrilla warfare, but from a military standpoint that is inaccurate.

Guerrilla Warfare is still warfare with the goal of aiding ones standing army to defeat the enemy. This is not true in relation to the current Al Qaeda insurgency in Iraq, which is why despite their somewhat similar tactics, I personally wouldn't call this Guerrilla warfare. It is a terrorist insurgency, solely. I doubt any military general would term it anything but that.

The insurgency is no more a guerrilla war than the IRA were. Terrorists do not equal Guerrillas. Suicide bombing foreginers are not local guerrillas.

Look at the sources for recruits. The use of the term 'insurgent' is slightly misleading, as it's connotes indigenous resistance.

Again this plays back into my PR point. Anyways, an insurgent is merely another term for an armed rebel. It doesn't have to be indigent, merely in opposition. George Soros is an insurgent to the US, and he certainly isn't a native.

So, you're claiming the terrorists' objective is to make the average Iranian hate the U.S.? To make liberal sheeple denounce Bush's foreign policy?

No, that's already done. Plus, Iran is a bad example as they are Shi'ite and as far from supporting any form of Wahabi extremist group as an Islamic regime can be.

The point is to garner support, cash, and bodies worldwide for their organization. What is the best way to accomplish a sale? You advertise. Al Qaeda has the best advertising in the Middle East right now, and the cost is a few bodies a week, which are easily bought from Palestinians, Sudanese, or other poor misled Muslims.

Really? A 'very effective campaign'? On what grounds? It's incredibly difficult to prosecute a campaign of any nature when you're dead. Without local shelter and support, dead is exactly how an insurgent force ends.

And yet the Al Qaeda insurgency is not weakining. The terrorist attacks are continuing and the pro insurgency and Osama writings and how poor the US is doing continues to stream from the media.
I don't know about you, but given the black eye the UK and the US governments are getting, despite running an almost flawless campaign to me is a sign of a very strong PR campaign.

We've heard that rhetoric before, and it didn't work out then either.

It won't work now, but these people, like those in the past feel they are 'right'. It's difficult to win against apathy. It's even harder against zealouts who feel they have the moral high ground

[xaoshaen]

Sure, you can call it guerrilla warfare, but from a military standpoint that is inaccurate.

Guerrilla Warfare is still warfare with the goal of aiding ones standing army to defeat the enemy. This is not true in relation to the current Al Qaeda insurgency in Iraq, which is why despite their somewhat similar tactics, I personally wouldn't call this Guerrilla warfare. It is a terrorist insurgency, solely. I doubt any military general would term it anything but that.

A guerilla campaign can exist entirely independantly from any standing army. Witness the textbook example of Guevarra and Castro in Cuba. The term is perfectly applicable in Iraq.

The insurgency is no more a guerrilla war than the IRA were. Terrorists do not equal Guerrillas. Suicide bombing foreginers are not local guerrillas.

Which was my point...

Again this plays back into my PR point. Anyways, an insurgent is merely another term for an armed rebel. It doesn't have to be indigent, merely in opposition. George Soros is an insurgent to the US, and he certainly isn't a native.

There's a difference between connotation and denotation, hence my use of the former term.

No, that's already done. Plus, Iran is a bad example as they are Shi'ite and as far from supporting any form of Wahabi extremist group as an Islamic regime can be.

My point exactly.

The point is to garner support, cash, and bodies worldwide for their organization. What is the best way to accomplish a sale? You advertise. Al Qaeda has the best advertising in the Middle East right now, and the cost is a few bodies a week, which are easily bought from Palestinians, Sudanese, or other poor misled Muslims.

And who exactly are they expecting this wellspring of support from? The exact same people that already support them. Viewing the terror in Iraq as a PR campaign is fundmentally flawed because the only people swayed by it are those who already believe in their cause.

And yet the Al Qaeda insurgency is not weakining. The terrorist attacks are continuing and the pro insurgency and Osama writings and how poor the US is doing continues to stream from the media.
I don't know about you, but given the black eye the UK and the US governments are getting, despite running an almost flawless campaign to me is a sign of a very strong PR campaign.

The insurgents in Iraq are losing local support, consolidating popular opinion behind the interim government, and making martyrs of their victims. Convincing people of what they already believe is hardly the hallmark of an effective PR campaign: witness the people who honestly believe that we invaded Iraq over oil, despite the utter lack of evidence or reason to support such a position.

It won't work now, but these people, like those in the past feel they are 'right'. It's difficult to win against apathy. It's even harder against zealouts who feel they have the moral high ground

Welcome to warfare, where 90% of all armed forces are zealots who feel they have the moral high ground. I mean really, when was the last time you heard of troops rallying around the opposite side of the Evil Empire speech?