Everyone's still reeling from the two bombings in the Middle East yesterday, both in Israel and Iraq. Many fear that the bus bombing in Jerusalem has derailed the peace process. The Iraq bombing, meanwhile, seems to represent an ominous change for the worse -- not just another attack against us, the occupying force, but a blow to the reconstruction process itself.
Christopher Albritton, the former AP and New York Daily News reporter who's blogging in Iraq now, worries that the violence "could be metastasizing into an anti-Western intifada/Arab nationalist revival. It’s unlikely a small group of former Ba’athists led by Saddam loyalists are leading the resistance now, and it’s pretty obvious that killing Uday and Qusai Hussein was ineffective, seeing as the attacks have increased. Likewise, killing or capturing Saddam Hussein is probably equally ineffective -- this is no longer about him."
The UN bombing "fits into a frightening pattern of escalating violence," says Tony Cordesman, an ABC News special correspondent.
"It has been building up, but it has been a mixture of violent acts of terrorism, of economic sabotage, a focused looting on critical facilities, oil export facilities, attacks on U.S. soldiers and the soldiers of other countries, attacks on friendly Iraqis, intimidation and threats. All of these measures have been brought together; it's not just one pattern."
James Rubin, a former U.S. deputy secretary of state, said yesterday that "the terrorism milieu in Iraq has changed, pointing to increased attacks against civilian targets and fewer large-scale attacks against U.S. soldiers.
"It is my suspicion that the types of attacks in Iraq are either backed or funded by Islamic extremists, Rubin said.
"They are coming from other countries and "see it as a rich place to conduct their bloody business," he said.
"Let's face it, if you are a terrorist in the Middle East and you have a mission to kill Americans, Iraq is now the place you're going to want to go," said Rubin.
And this analysis, from the New York Times (registration required): "There is a growing belief that anti-American fighters, whatever their origin and inspiration, have adopted a coherent strategy not only to kill members of allied forces when possible, but also to spread fear by destroying public offices and utilities."
Who would bomb the UN? DEBKAfile reports that "since late June, Chechen terrorists have been coming to Iraq to join the anti-American offensive," and that "the intake of Arab fighters entering Iraq from Syria is beginning to outnumber the indigenous Iraqi guerrillas fighting in the northern Mosul-Haditha district and the central Ramadi-Fallujah region."
Everything that's going on right now sounds an awful lot like fourth-generation warfare, which "includes all forms of conflict where the other side refuses to stand up and fight fair," according to the Web site Defense and the National Interest. "What distinguishes 4GW from earlier generations is that typically at least one side is something other than a military force organized and operating under the control of a national government, and one that often transcends national boundaries."
Although it's a few years old, this story in The Atlantic argues that our military is woefully unprepared to tackle an enemy that doesn't fight fair.
We did a pretty good job defeating Saddam's army -- a conventional military force organized and operating under the control of a national government. Now that there is no national government or standing army, our military is doing a good job of chasing down Saddam's former henchmen. But we seem to be unable to control the random acts of violence and terrorism that are tearing the country apart.
Back to top