Daily Kos

Iraqi resistance leaders speak out - Liberation near

Thu Jun 24, 2004 at 12:56:45 PM PDT

From the asia times:
On the eve of the so-called transfer of sovereignty to the new Iraqi caretaker government on June 30, former Saddam Hussein generals turned members of the elite of the Iraqi resistance movement have abandoned their clandestine positions for a while to explain their version of events and talk about their plans. According to these Ba'ath officials, "the big battle" in Iraq is yet to take place.

"We knew that if the United States decided to attack Iraq, we would have no chance faced with their technological and military power. The war was lost in advance, so we prepared the post-war. In other words: the resistance. Contrary to what has been largely said, we did not desert after American troops entered the center of Baghdad on April 5, 2003. We fought a few days for the honor of Iraq - not Saddam Hussein - then we received orders to disperse." Baghdad fell on April 9: Saddam and his army where nowhere to be seen.

"As we have foreseen, strategic zones fell quickly under control of the Americans and their allies. For our part, it was time to execute our plan. Opposition movements to the occupation were already organized. Our strategy was not improvised after the regime fell." This plan B, which seems to have totally eluded the Americans, was carefully organized, according to these officers, for months if not years before March 20, 2003, the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The lethal offensive of the American troops in Fallujah in March has been the turning point as far as the resistance is concerned. The indiscriminate pillage by American soldiers during their search missions (according to many witnesses) and the sexual humiliation inflicted to prisoners, including Abu Ghraib in Baghdad, have only served to magnify the anger felt by most Iraqis. "There's no more trust, it will be hard to regain it." According to these resistance leaders, "We have reached the point of no return."

"The attacks are meticulously prepared. They must not last longer than 20 minutes and we operate preferably at night or very early in the morning to limit the risks of hitting Iraqi civilians." They anticipate our next question: "No, we don't have weapons of mass destruction. On the other hand, we have more than 50 million conventional weapons." By the initiative of Saddam, a real arsenal was concealed all over Iraq way before the beginning of the war. No heavy artillery, no tanks, no helicopters, but Katyushas, mortars (which the Iraqis call haoun), anti-tank mines, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and other Russian-made rocket launchers, missiles, AK 47s and substantial reserves of all sorts of ammunition. And the list is far from being extensive.

The real kicker:

Why have these former officers waited so long to come out of their closets? "Because today we are sure we're going to win."

All I can think to comment is that it's a sad state of affairs.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 8 comments

  •  Winning (none / 0)

    I don't know about "winning", but launching a coordinated offensive shows some amount of confidence.  The North Vietnamese didn't really "win", militarily, in the Tet offensive either, for what it's worth.
    •  As far as I'm concerned... (none / 1)

      We lost before the Iraq fighting began... played right into the hand of our real enemy.

      Our so-called "victory" last March was nothing of the sort.  We should have been more suspicious of the "melting away" of the Iraq army.  Yet another sign of just how ignorant Bush's "mission accomplished" speech was.  

      •  Specify (none / 0)

        I think you need to specify which enemy you think we've lost against.

        Al Qaeda? Maybe, but I'm not willing to cede that yet--we can't, for the sake of the country.

        Iraq? I think we lost to Iran in Iraq. Chalabi as spy claims aside, it's clear that Iran has a huge influence on just about any forseeable Iraqi leader now that Lakhdar Brahimi wasn't allowed to name Adnan Pachachi as interim leader. So at least as things look right now, we've lost not just the war in Iraq, but we've lost a battle in a much larger war against Iran.

        But then this article suggests we may be seeing a pretty juicy civil war between Shiites and Sunnis down the pike. If that's the case, then it's not clear who wins, just that we look like complete blithering idiots. But I think even our good allies the Israelis would agree with that statement now.

        This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

        by emptywheel on Thu Jun 24, 2004 at 01:51:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed (none / 0)

          We've only empowered Iran (probably N. Korea as well).  Although I fear a wider conflict involving the Kurds more so than Sunni/Shiites.  The Kurds have been oppressed for too long and by too many countries.  Our war in Iraq has disrupted the balance of power in the whole region and has lead to huge risk of a wider conflict in the middle east, and therefore to the oil that underpins our economy.  

          As for Al Qaeda, I don't believe we'll ever win as long as we exploit the oil resources of the Mid East.

  •  seems like a poor time to be admitting this (none / 0)

    this information makes much more sense as U.S. intitiated propaganda to justify are continuing presence in Iraq, and possibly to delay democratic elections.

    free the information

    by freelixir on Thu Jun 24, 2004 at 01:26:48 PM PDT

  •  Wow (none / 0)

    Good post. It might help me clear things up with a few Kool-aid drinking neocons.
  •  Technical question (none / 0)

    I used <div class="blockquote"> to get the grey boxes around the quotes, as this is what I found in the source of the main page.  This method worked when I use Mozilla browser, but doesn't work in IE.

    What is the best practise here.. getting the grey boxes?

Permalink | 8 comments