Iraqi Shiite Opposition Opposes Coalition, Not Iraqi, Forces

STRATFOR ^ | Mar 29, 2003

[Axion]

Iraqi Shiite Opposition Opposes Coalition, Not Iraqi, Forces
Mar 29, 2003 - 0507 GMT

Summary

Comprising 60 percent of Iraq's population, Shiites will largely decide the fate of Iraqi resistance countrywide. So far they have been more on the side of Baghdad than of Washington. Some Shiites are fighting U.S. forces, and others have remained neutral. Changing this pattern will be difficult, but this is what the United States must do to crush resistance, both during and after the war.

Analysis

The administrations of U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair had hoped that allied troops would be hailed as liberators, if not by all, at least by a majority of Iraqis -- particularly the Shiites, who rose against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in 1991 and suffered when Hussein quashed the uprising. This has not been the case. Many Shiites during the course of this war have been sitting on the sidelines, perhaps waiting to see whether the Americans or the Iraqi government will prevail; others have joined the fight against U.S. forces, whom they consider to be invaders and occupants.

Consider the following:

1. Shiites represent a significant majority in the Iraqi armed forces, which were reported to number about 470,000 before the war. Given reports from Iraqi POWs in coalition custody, it appears that a majority of Shiite soldiers remain loyal to the Iraqi government. It also appears that a majority of Iraqi soldiers now fighting in the south are Shiites.

2. The coalition command releases reports every day of tough fighting by local militias and guerrilla attacks in southern Iraq. A majority of locals in the south, and accordingly significant portions of local militias, are Shiites. The fiercest fighting in this war so far has occurred in An Nasiriyah, An Najaf and south of Karbala. All three are major Shiite cities, and the latter two are holy cities as well. Local militias of Shia origin mostly defend these places. This militia is called the Volunteer Army of the Liberation of Jerusalem. The Fedayeen -- units that have spearheaded attacks on U.S. troops' rear positions and along supply lines -- consist of both Shiites and Sunnies, Stratfor's foreign intelligence sources say.

3. The most successful singular attack on U.S. troops to date in this war -- when an armored personnel carrier was destroyed, seven Marines were killed and several others were wounded, according to U.S. data -- was conducted by Meisun Hamid Abdalla, a female Shiite soldier, Stratfor's sources in the Middle East say.

4. To date, there has been no uprising inside the besieged city of Basra -- a city of 1.7 million people, most of whom are Shia. Stratfor's Arab sources say that of the estimated 50,000 Basra defenders, most are Shiites, with a majority of unarmed Shiite residents supporting them.

5. Some U.S. commanders report that groups of pick-up trucks frequently have approached their units in the desert in southern Iraq. The trucks' occupants have fired at coalition forces with mounted anti-tank missiles and other arms, then quickly retreated. The southern desert region of Iraq is populated almost completely by Shia tribes, and all their men are armed -- according to tradition -- so any number of them could have mounted these attacks.

6. In the areas occupied by coalition forces, no reports have emerged of local Shiites volunteering to help foreign troops clear the area of Iraqi guerrillas, or organize a pro-U.S. local government.

7. Reports of riots against the Iraqi government in Shia-populated areas outside Basra have not been confirmed.

The list could go on. Certainly, not all Shiites are participating in the fight. Many appear to be straddling the fence. But local collaborators in Shia-populated areas have not emerged -- at least not yet. Elements of the Shiite opposition abroad before the war had indicated that Shiites in Iraq might be prepared to rise up against Hussein's forces. But the Shiite population of Iraq seems to have sensed a trend away from cooperation with coalition forces, and thus the opposition has shied away from joining the war on the coalition side.

Stratfor's sources in the European offices of the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) said that since the first day of the war, SCIRI has not supported the attack and will not assist coalition troops in Iraq. Moreover, SCIRI Chairman Hojjat ol-Eslam Muhammad Baqir al Hakim has said his forces would wait until Baghdad falls and then clear Shiite-controlled areas of Iraq of coalition troops.

Why are Shiites fighting the coalition forces in Iraq? We think there are two main reasons. First, Shiites perceive this war as a holy struggle against foreign aggressors who invaded their holy land. In fact, religious laws require Shiites to fight invading forces.

Stratfor was the only source that found and published information that, just before the attack on Iraq began, the three most distinguished and senior Iraqi Shia clerics issued a fatwa -- a call for holy struggle against the infidels.

Second, Iraqi Shiites seem to believe that they are fulfilling their patriotic duty to defend Iraq -- their motherland -- against foreign invaders. They do not care about Hussein. In fact many view him as a suppressor, but they do care about Iraq.

Changing this pattern of behavior in the majority of the Iraqi population will be difficult indeed, given that coalition bombs already have killed some Shiite civilians, and Shiites are largely angry at the United States and Britain for the extreme hardships their families are being exposed to in Basra. But Stratfor believes it is possible, if the coalition achieves major successes -- such as taking Baghdad -- and wins the hearts of the people by distributing food and other aid to Shia-populated areas, the majority of Iraq's Shia population might change its view.

[RLK]

Islam trumps all else. We are outsiders. We claim to be liberators. Few people asked us to liberate them. We are in the same position as if Islamic armies would have come here to liberate us from Bill Clinton.

[laconic]

I hope this isn't true but if it is, we could face a horrific guerilla war involving the very people we are liberating after Saddam is liquidated. Contrast Richard Perle's PBS interview from last summer quoted in the Washington Post this morning in which he predicted that only 10 percent of Saddam Hussein's troops would be loyal, predicted an "internal revolt" against him, asserted that support for Saddam within his military "would collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder" and claimed "It will be far easier than many people think". Which analysis is correct?

[wireman]

Exactly!

These people have been murdered and tortured for 25 years by this regime. Until they are SURE it is gone for good, they're hedging their bets.

It is the smart thing to do.

[panaxanax]

Looks like Bush & Rummy should have listened to the Generals and sent more men in to begin with. A more impressive initial showing would have brought the Shiites over to our side.

Keep politics out of it and let those who know how to fight wars do so. But...uh..oh..er...maybe that's the "plan" we keep hearing about.

[marron]

You will find that dictatorships have a good deal more internal support than most people imagine. The fact that they are capable of great cruelty shows not only that they are afraid of internal resistance, but also that they have the capacity to command mass brutality, and to be obeyed by large numbers of people.

Saddam obviously does not commit the atrocities against his people; he orders them, but he would be impotent if there were not many, many people prepared to carry them out.

This does two things. The people who commit this brutality are implicated, and have adopted the philosophy of the dictator. Those who don't accept it keep silent or die. And this acceptance of brutality by some, and silence by the rest, re-shapes the culture in ways that cannot be undone in a day.

So, in going in after Saddam, we are finding a distorted culture, and a distorted people serving distorted ends. This is not too terribly surprising. Not everyone is blind to evil, but there are enough killers in their midst that those who are not blind must continue to keep silent a little longer. Remember the civilians who were murdered for waving to our troops. Remember the people whose sons have been kidnapped by the Fedayeen for combat duty. Remember the men whose families have been threatened with murder if they do not join the "resistance".

We have entered Iraq for a specific purpose, which is to depose Saddam, and to leave the country in the hands of someone, anyone, who is less evil than Saddam. We have higher hopes, but this is the minimum requirement for it to be a success. We certainly hope to do more, to leave Iraq as a democracy, and if there are any people in Iraq who want this, this is their chance. But we cannot impose it where there is no fertile ground. But we can, and will, eliminate Saddam, and anyone and everyone who lifts a rifle to defend him.

[D-fendr]

Wipe out the feyadeen thugs and you'll be surprised how many victims of Saddam will turn on him.

[tomahawk]

We are in Iraq to remove Saddam and the Ba'athist regime, and disarm Iraq of WMD's. Liberation from Saddam was/is not a prime objective, though an anticipated benefit.

[delacoert]

We are in the same position as if Islamic armies would have come here to liberate us from Bill Clinton.

Brilliant. :rolleyes:

Your grasp of reality is surpassed only by your expertise with grammar.

What's with this "we" sh*t.

[LarryM]

The whole idea that Arabs were going over to our side and that we should minimize civilian casualties to win their haerts and minds is a fantasy. We nead to unleash hell on them because the only language they understand is froce.

[TheLooseThread]

There has never been anything the US military has done that Statfor hasn't said was doomed.

1. ...Given reports from Iraqi POWs in coalition custody...

Statfor has report from iraqi POWs? I doubt it.

2. Here they guess at the makeup of the (minimal) guerella foces and infer shite support.

All from "Stratfor's foreign intelligence". IE a wild guess.

3. ...conducted by Meisun Hamid Abdalla, a female Shiite soldier, Stratfor's sources in the Middle East say.

I know a republican who is pro-choice. Therefor all reuplicans are pro-choice (??)

4. Stratfor's Arab sources say that of the estimated 50,000 Basra defenders, most are Shiites...

I would take that as proof that the Shites don't want to fight since basra is (basically) quiet. And using "arab sources?" Read that to mean that they could not find ANY sources to give a doomed read on things, so they had to use arab sources.

5. Here they talk about attacks in coalition forces in the south and the "fact" that the south is "populated almost completely by Shia tribes..."

Then, according to Statfor's logic, the entire battle in the south is an internal iraqi civil war. Since they apparently rule out the concept of anyone being transported from anywhere, it leaves only shites in the south.

6. In the areas occupied by coalition forces, no reports have emerged ...

Statfor has no reports of this?!? Then I guess it can't possibly be happening. Cause if it was happening, the US would call up Stratfor and tell them. Gee, I guess they are right on this one.

7. Reports of riots against the Iraqi government in Shia-populated areas outside Basra have not been confirmed.

Cqacuck! Gurf! (sorry, choking on food when I read this). Stratfor is here saying that you can't say something has happened unless it is "confirmed?" So... now they are telling us to ignore numbers 1 thru 6!

[Conservateacher]

"Stratfor was the only source that found and published information that, just before the attack on
Iraq began, the three most distinguished and senior Iraqi Shia clerics issued a fatwa -- a call for
holy struggle against the infidels."

Like their fellow clerics in Iran know - Democracy and theocracy don't mix. They would lose power if Iraq becomes a democracy. They might not trust him but at least they have kept their "jobs" under Sadaam.

[Allan]

It should be pointed out
that in the area of South Iraq now occupied
are the most sacred sites of the Shia faith:
Najaf, Karbala
(where Khomeini and other Shia leaders studied)

To the Shias
the presence of Coalition forces
would almost be the equivalent
to an occupation of Mecca and Medina.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[usafsk]

More ignorance from Stratfor. These guys are illiterate as well as ill-informed. The Shia group they mentioned is backed by the Iranians, so of course they're making noise. They are not the main Shia opposition force, but a stooge of the Iranian mullahs.

Two malapropisms in the text. First, the use of the term "occupants" when they mean "occupiers", and second the use of the word "suppressor" (sic), which might be something you put on an assault weapon or artillery tube to control the flash. Stratfor, get a dictionary, read history, or shut the f**k up.

[Mitchell]

It should be pointed out that in the area of South Iraq now occupied are the most sacred sites of the Shia faith: Najaf, Karbala (where Khomeini and other Shia leaders studied)
To the Shias the presence of Coalition forces would almost be the equivalent to an occupation of Mecca and Medina.

Presumably the Sunni control is also anathema to the Shias. This is a very complicated situation.

Rumsfeld yesterday warned Iran against getting involved. We don't want this turning into a three-way battle.