A General Uprising?

by Robert J. Romano

April 25th, 2004

Just how many insurgents is the coalition dealing with in Iraq? Out of the 25 million people in Iraq, what percentage of that population is actively aiding the insurgency? Do we look at the current fighting as representative of the will of an entire society? Even if we're dealing 50,000 insurgents in Iraq, out of 25 million people that is a miniscule number, about .2%. Heck, let's be even more generous, let's assume there's 500,000 insurgents, still 2%.  The truth be told, 50,000 appears to be the correct number. 

        Quoted from Iraqi Resistance: "The U.S military estimates that around 5,000 fighters form the core of the movement, along with many other active sympathizers and part-time insurgents who altogether may total 50,000 strong (according to a CIA report)." So, according to the U.S. estimates, 99.8% of the population of the Iraqi people are not members of the insurgency, and presumably are carrying on their lives as is normal.  Some uprising! Of course, what we are seeing in Iraq may as well be a nationwide uprising, if media reports are to be trusted, the numbers be damned.  And never mind the presence of foreign fighters in Iraq, they may as well be elected representatives! How do they even get to be included in the "Iraqi" resistance? At what point do we run the risk of taking the insurgency, which is the exception, and making it the rule?

        In a war where the will and resolve of the American people will be key to victory, misreporting the nature and scope of the current violence is irresponsible.   Uprising in Iraq could derail Bush, Anti-U.S. Uprising Widens in Iraq, General Uprising in Iraq are just a few examples of how a few headlines reported recent violence in Iraq in recent weeks.  However, this "uprising" is not popular, and it does not represent the interests of a free Iraq.  Reputedly leading the "uprising" is Muqtada al Sadr.  However, al Sadr is wanted for murder in Iraq, and his militia is not legitimate.  Just what would he replace the interim constitution with? What end does this man conceivably serve other than to derail the efforts of the Iraqi people and the coalition to rebuild Iraq, and to prevent the transfer of sovereignty? Quoted from: Return of Tet? "Muqtada al-Sadr launched his bid for disruption precisely because he lacks religious credentials and public standing among the Iraqi Shias... Shia Islam embodies a seniority system of leadership. Young aspirants count for very little in Shi'ism; all power, respect, and decision-making resides in the hands of the ayatollahs, who are greybearded, veteran scholars admired and even venerated for their learning, writing, and theological sophistication. In this regard, Shia Islam most resembles the Orthodox tradition in Christianity; Muqtada al-Sadr has no more capacity to mobilize a majority of the Iraqi Shias than a lone Greek priest from the island of Crete would have to challenge the Ecumenical Patriarch in Istanbul ."

        Since Hussein's Iraq fell to the coalition forces, and the insurgency began, media outlets have consistently attempted to portray the actions of the few as representative of the will of the Iraqi people.  To what end does portraying a massive uprising serve other than to demoralize the American people's resolve to stay the course? Moreover, critics of the war effort want to demonstrate that the current uprising was not planned for, and may as well be as a result of poor "post-war" planning.  (Never mind that the war is not over.) No, the violence is not as a result of the actions of murders, but for the lack of a plan.  Of course! 

        These fallacious criticisms lend far too much credence to the insurgents themselves, and indeed serve an ulterior motive.  To what end does portraying inept war planning serve other than to justify the actions of the insurgents? Sure, if only we had planned more, and been prepared for the "just" claims of the insurgency, they would have laid down their arms, and all would be peaceful.  But, what exactly do the insurgents want? Power, perhaps? 

        Taking down the insurgency is absolutely necessary, and in working towards that end, not rewarding these acts of murder with political power.  The insurgents' time is running out, and those who are working against the Iraqi people and the coalition must realize that the transfer of sovereignty will not be delayed, they will not win the popular support of the people themselves, and nor will they attain political power in a free Iraq.  Advocates of violence, just like violent perpetrators and terrorists, have no place in a free Iraq.  These murderers will be held to account, and they will be brought to justice.  In addition, Iraq will be needing the aid of her neighbors in securing borders and in preventing armed insurgents from entering into Iraq to derail the process of rebuilding the country.  The ends of the terror cause will not be served, and they will not succeed.  Freedom growing in the greater Middle East, by the peaceful discourse and consent of those governed in Iraq is a certainty, and the actions of the new interim government will prove that come June 30th.