"So in the end, what does Saddam get out of this? . . .Who's to say the Iraqis wouldn't just release him?"
Second question first . . .it is true that it is unlikely they would release him. The new government *definitely* would not. A radical one succeeding it *probably* would not. The radical Shiites would kill him on the spot as would the moderates. The only folks that want him back are the radical Sunnis as they ran the ship as part of his gravy train. But even many Sunni tribes were targeted by Saddam for suspected disloyalty, so they had their fair share of victims. And they are only 15-18% of the population, and the Shi'a are 60+%. The only way they survived at the top of the heap was by brutal repression, and that game is over.
He has to be tried. He is one of the great war criminals of the 21st century. He has killed more Muslims than any other man in human history (over a million). He may have killed hundreds of Americans directly (and thousands indirectly), but he has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and they have every right to try him.
It is their country and their criminal, but we will obviously have a say in the matter . . .
What did he get out of the current jihad? He wanted to lead a guerilla resistance. Abandon the conventional military (which never had a chance). Fall back into a preplanned resistance with designated safe houses, stockpiles, etc. This tactic was seen in the south in the opening days of the war. The Fedayeen took off the uniforms and blended into the populace and managed to terrorize the south into a cowed silence.
That was why there was no "cheering in the streets" when we first went in. Because Saddam's men were hiding among them warning they would shoot "collaborators" on sight. They are terrorists - - true to form. The same guys that trained the hijackers at Salman Pak are the same guys that terrorized the population into neutrality and the same guys who target our troops with IEDs.
It did not work as well as he hoped (obviously because we are still there and he is not), but it did work to a limited extent. It succeeded in pushing the Iraqi people into feared neutrality. And it succeeded in creating a political backlash here at home because we had so unwisely built up expectations for a speedy conclusion to a war that we knew was being fought on the cheap and a planned resistance that folks either out of blindness or hubris refused to seriously acknowledge.
Right before the war, Saddam had all his top officers watch "Black Hawk Down" as a model on how to fight the Americans in urban combat. What has happened this past year should have been no big mystery.
Iran and Syria were involved in this from the start as well. The jihadis are like small time drug dealers and gangbangers - - street thugs. Fedayeen, Qods, Mukhabarat - - these are the Mafia kingpins or the drug lords. We aren't going to win this unless we go to the source and take out the masterminds and the mentors.
Unfortunately, that would mean a WMD Mideast regional war, and it seems we have our hands full in Iraq. Plus the bad guys are betting that we won't pull that trigger in an election year.
What *did* Saddam want out of jihad? He changed the Iraqi flag in the mid-90s to have the words "God is Great" placed on it. And he cultivated Al Qaeda (along with other states) during the same time. He wanted a weapon to use against us that was deniable and would erode our national will to remain engaged in the Mideast. And after we had withdrawn our forces from the region and become more neutral towards Israel, he would fulfill his lifelong ambition to follow in the footsteps of Saladin (a fellow Tikriti) and have his way with the region, knocking off the House of Saud or the Hashemite Kingdom, and putting an Iraqi intelligence agent (UBL, Zarqawi, etc) in as the new ruler, and together descend in jihad to take Jerusalem back for the Arab nation and Allah.
You have to stand back to get the big picture, and to understand what is coming in the next few weeks and months. Others will seek that mantle because they feel their backs will be against the wall once Iraq stabilizes and American forces will be freed up to respond to any further nonsense.
Hence, the frantic attempt to destabilize Iraq and force us out. For the bad guys, everything is riding on the outcome (they feel they are next). It is indeed the central front. And so, just as the violence will explode in Iraq in the next 2-3 weeks in a way that exceeds anything we have seen thus far, it stands to reason that if they are able, will try to "destabilize" our willingness to incur death and sacrifice in Iraq by inflicting death on us here. And to do it in a way that maximizes the political effect (before November 2nd a la Madrid). However, sooner rather than later applies here because everything is riding on Iraq. So my guess is that the attack, unlike Spain, will not be timed days near the election, but near the Iraqi transfer date (in the leadup or aftermath of the June 30th handover), so they coincide the political effect here (forcing us the reconsider our involvement and commitment to our allies as they hoped to do on 9/11) with the political effect there (destabilizing the new Iraqi government so jihadis or their backers from the former regime can seize power).
They tried to destabilize Jordan (pre-empted WMD chemical attack) and are trying to do that in Saudi and in Iraq. Sent a warning shot to Assad last month with the attack in Damascus (stop playing footsies with and snitching to the Americans and stay in bed with us or you will pay).
The current strategy is the same as was Saddam's and his partners pre-9/11 (force America out of the Mideast, destabilize its allies, then converge on Israel). They picked Saudi and Egyptian identities to fit the strategy. And they decided early on to base out of Afghanistan in the hope of tying us down as they did the Soviets. We didn't take the bait in either case. (Didn't make it our mission to take down the House of Saud or to try to send 200,000 troops to occupy Afghanistan. We played it smart.)
If they wait until October to hit, it will give us the chance to absorb the coming hits in Iraq and the new Iraqi government to start taking out the jihadi resistance themselves (rather than the American "occupiers"). It's like when an older brother beats the stuffing out of a younger sibling, but will fiercely defend that same sibling if attacked by an outsider, or why it is ok for some members of racial or ethnic communities to use offensive epithets on each other (the "N-word" comes to mind) but will not let an outsider do that without a severe penalty.
The Arab saying is (paraphrased) "Me and my brother against my cousin. Me and my cousin against the outsider." Once the Iraqis are running the show instead of us, they will be free to "beat the stuffing" out of the resistance. But as long as the American "cousins" are running the show as self-declared occupiers, their hands are tied. No one on this planet ever liked an occupier. We sure didn't back in 1776.
That is why they are fighting so fiercely to undermine the transition. Remember the references to the number 4 at the beginning of the year? The Sadr uprising began in four cities on 4-4-04. The Sunni uprising in Fallujah was launched in close coordination (outsiders playing both ends against the middle - - the middle being us). That is why they have been going after members of the Iraqi Governing Council for the past nine months. It is why they targeted the UN at the start (to prevent them from facilitating or assisting the transition as they have just done with the resolution). It is why they have been trying to peel off coalition members one by one (the Spanish and the Italians being the initial focus). Everything rides on the next few weeks.
That is why any attack will not wait until late October. Anything in the pipeline is going to be released to maximize the chance of contributing to foiling the June 30 transition. The longer they wait the less likely they will achieve their strategic goals. They will lose their foothold in Iraq as the new government gets its bearings and begins to crack down on them, and if they attempt to flee and regroup in an adjacent country, they will make it a target as American forces in Iraq will be freer to respond as the situation stabilizes.
If they wait too long, it will no longer matter. At that point, they can still inflict damage on us, but they will have already sustained a fatal blow and they will have been checkmated. There might still need to be 10-11 moves for the rest of the game to play out over coming years, but it will still be a checkmate if we lock down Iraq, stabilize it, and make it an ally in the war against these folks. There is no way they can carry out their regional strategy if Iraq is taken off the table (politically, militarily, or geographically). It is the "linchpin" state in the WoT (as Germany was for the Cold War).
So, it is gametime.
I read your post through from beginning to end several times. Thank you for your thoughtful response. In particular, your description of this Saladin ambition, opened my eyes to the depth of the historical (partly mythical?) past of the Arab nations and their neverending aspiration to go back in time. Even the jihadi "speech patterns" in their threats with references to swords and horses, etc. is all of a Saladin era theme. An ancient culture that chooses to live in their own cave of darkness. The good old days, I suppose.
No one on this planet ever liked an occupier.
It makes me cringe to hear us referred to as occupiers, when the intent was to be liberators. Hopefully, in time, history will see us as liberators.
I do indeed remember the 4-4 references, and took note that the Sadr uprisings began on 4-4-04. But! Thanks for connecting that it did indeed start in 4 cities. Seems then, that Sadr got the jihad "talking points" and fulfilled a request.
Anything in the pipeline is going to be released to maximize the chance of contributing to foiling the June 30 transition.
Agreed. The next few weeks will be tough, we can already see it building.
So, it is gametime.
And time for prayer.