CIA Report Says U.S. Losing Popular Support in Iraq(Gag!!!)

Reuters ^ | Wed November 12, 2003 | By Will Dunham

[dinok]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A CIA report concludes that ordinary Iraqis increasingly are siding with the insurgency amid doubts about the U.S. ability to stamp it out, officials said on Wednesday, while the U.S. administrator in Iraq said it was hard to figure out where the Iraqi public stands.

The CIA's classified field assessment concluded that many Iraqis are losing faith in American efforts in Iraq amid the U.S. failure to crush an increasingly bold resistance, said U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity.

[dinok]

This is what we get for not firing all the Clinton holdovers in the government. These people are dangerous. At a time when we are fighting the war and need them on board to give our soldiers the information they need to win, they are sneaking around to talk to lefty reporters about how Bush is bad. I expect that from democrat senators and congressmen, not CIA officials. Shame on you. You don't even have the guts to say it in public.

[RJCogburn]

The question is, is this assessment correct?

The CIA does not have a flawless record.

[swilhelm73]

The report researched and written by Agent Valerie Plame finds that a random phone survey of residents of the town of Tikrit who worked in the Iraqi government prior to 2003 finds that a whopping 92% think things were better under Saddam Hussein and 85% think Joe Wilson looks really sexy.

[OneTimeLurker]

Seems reasonable based on what I have seen and read in the last few months.

[dinok]

Well, we sure founf that WMD the CIA thought was there didn't we?

[camas]

they do not want to be on the wrong side if a rat is elected next year. they know we would cut and run.

[Rippin]

How would popular support get worse? All the Iraqis thought continued oppression was the cat's meow from the beginning, they never wanted us there in the first place.

[OpusatFR]

So, if it's AlQueda and the Taliban holdovers, are they using the same techniques they did to fight the Russians in Afghanistan now in Iraq?

If we know that they are fighting in the same way, how do you counter that?

[Williams]

has the CIA recommended any policy that they feel would be more effective? Sounds like a CYA report. Obviously, if we cut and run the terrorists will take over. If we stay and fight, they are saying the populous may resent us and join the resistance (that is the one I really question depending on which segment of the Iraqi people you are talking about). So I'm missing their recommendation.

[Rokke]

Sarcasm noted. That's the first thing that came to my mind. Reuters has droned endlessly about how the Iraqi people never wanted us there. Now we've "lost popular support"? How could we have lost something Reuters says we've never had.

[Ben Ficklin]

The link doesn't seem to be working?

[Williams]

Also, "losing faith" in our efforts is a lot different from wanting the insurgents to win. It may be the Iraqi's are simply afraid we will cut and run.

I find it hard to believe that a daily isolated RPG attack is enough to make Iraqi's think we are unable to control the insurgents. The insurgents cannot hold a single street or govern a single town.

[Mr. Lucky]

Who cares?

By this logic, because blowing up the World Trade Center was popular in Arabic countries, it must have been the right thing to do.

[swilhelm73]

So, if it's AlQueda and the Taliban holdovers, are they using the same techniques they did to fight the Russians in Afghanistan now in Iraq?

If we know that they are fighting in the same way, how do you counter that?

So many issues here...

1) The Afghan resistance predates the Taliban and AQ. While there are some who were part of the mujahadeen - the mujahadeen wasn't a direct predecessor of either organization

2) They can't use the same tactics, because unlike Afghanistan, Iraq, in the sunny triangle region at least, is flat and open - unlike the broken terrian of Afghanistan.

3) The Mujahadeen were on their last legs when we started supplying them with anti-air missiles. Soviet helicopter attacks were punishing the poorly equipped resistance. The Baathist reminants do have access to stockpiles of Hussein's weapons - but how much they have we do not know. More importantly, no major arms producer is supplying them.

4) The Soviets engaged in brutual, murderous warfare on behalf of a puppet communist government that was about to be overthrown. Their extreme brutality turned the whole country against them in spite of the many differences between various tribes in Afghanistan.

In Iraq we've already won the hearts and minds of most of the populace - namely the Kurds and Shiites. Many Sunni Baathists believe we will cut and run if they kill enough Americans thanks to the seditious press. When Bush wins in 2004 and/or Hussein is proven to be dead, that hope will go leaving them no room for victory.

As for the AQ/Pallies in Iraq, they are hated with a passion by the locals. When Sunni resistance ends, expect them to not last very long - and we can always get serious with the pressure on Arafat to make them stop comming if we have to.

[dinok]

"So, if it's AlQueda and the Taliban holdovers, are they using the same techniques they did to fight the Russians in Afghanistan now in Iraq?

If we know that they are fighting in the same way, how do you counter that?"

Ahhh...this is where a true Spy agency comes in. One that hires and runs spies...agents. Not sit in their offices at Langley and wait for the NSA to give them electronic data. We have tow sources to blame on this. The democrats that outlawed spying and the pro technology CIA people who think runing agents is a thing of the past.

Bottom line, if we had good inteligence in IRAQ we would need half the troops.

[dinok]

http://www.reuters.com/news.jhtml

This will take you to their front page. Its the top article.

[MizSterious]

"This is what we get for not firing all the Clinton holdovers in the government."

And this is probably not even the worst of the fallout from keeping the Clinton hacks around.

[Solamente]

"Ordinary Iraqis" are every bit as misguided, stupid, and emotional as our own Liberal Democrats. If the CIA can't figure that out, maybe thry're not too intelligent.

[mewzilla]

Is this the same CIA that sent Joe Wilson to Niger? That CIA? It is? Nuff said.

[Filibuster_60]

The report researched and written by Agent Valerie Plame finds that a random phone survey of residents of the town of Tikrit who worked in the Iraqi government prior to 2003 finds that a whopping 92% think things were better under Saddam Hussein and 85% think Joe Wilson looks really sexy.

You actually hit one nail right on the head: the fact is that a large percentage of Iraqis, especially in the "Sunni triangle", depended on the regime for their livelihood. Nationwide there are 3,000,000 former Baathists, with a disproportionate share of the hardcore members to be found in places like Tikrit. I doubt many want Saddam back in power, but they clearly have no love for Americans, and if events continue to suggest we can't control the violence, have no doubt they'll start assisting the insurgency. At the back of their mind is the fear that somehow, Saddam might be resurrected, if only in central Iraq. Choosing sides in this uncertain environment is a no-brainer: if they assist the rebels, the Americans will still pussy-foot over stronger retaliation against pro-insurgency communities, yet if they're seen to collaborate with US forces, they'll be the first ones to enter the torture chambers if a Saddamite order is even partly restored.