the outcome of the election

[Occhidiangela]

My only point continues to be simply that we cannot dismiss all resisting Iraqis as terrorists, whether their war is conducted with conventional weapons or not.
[right][snapback]60021[/snapback][/right]

Sorry, EDIT, I meant to hit preview first.

I agree with you in a general sense, however, one then must look at cases. Who is providing support to the counter Coalition forces, and why? (That the methods of terror are used still marks them as terrorists.) You will know them by their works.

Former regime members and other Sunni factions, to include the rather elusive Al Douri. (The guy who looks like a Scotsman on his picture in the "deck of cards.")
Iran.
A number of extranational groups, to include Al Qaeda.
Others that I can't readily indentify.

What is their aim?

In the Sunni Triangle, it is to first destabalize the provisional government so that the public loses any confidence Alawi and others have, then to fill the vacuum of power left when the Sunni dominated power base was tossed out . . . by external players. That point is a key theme that allows them to drum up both internal and external support. "This is a problem of Iraq, to be resolved by Iraq, Yankee and the rest of you pogues, go home."

The Shia players, to include Al Sadr, a man who is trading on his father's name and is not in fact an ordained cleric, is attempting to keep the momentum of post Saddam 'rebalancing" and become a major player in the Shia faction's attempt to grab as much power as they can during the power vacuum's duration. He is at odds both with the Sunni faction, and with other Shia factions. (We heard rumor that Al Zarqawi had put out a contract on him, I have no idea if that is true or not.)

This internal power struggle, held in stasis during Saddam's iron fist days, will go on for years, and has the potential to split Iraq into three, or more, states in the theme of Bosnia.

As to Al Zarqawi, and foreign agent provocateurs, their aim is to keep Iraq unstable, and to generally make America bleed on a different agenda, so that an Islamicist power structure can infiltrate and slowly build a shadow government that will move Iraq in the direction I predicted before the war ever started: growth into an Islamic Republic. Just what the world needs, another medeival leadership cabal.

As to Iran, an unstable Iraq leaves them virtually alone as a regional power. The other Arab states are rich and weak, and are seen by some locals as hiring the Americans for muscle. :blink: It is in the interest of Iran to have a weak, or subserviant, Iraq as their regional neighbor. Iran is still the big dog in the Persian Gulf. (Eh, they have their name on it! :D)

The capacity for peaceful change? Gobs of international assistance is available to transition Iraq without a civil war. The above parties have chosen not only to perpetuate a war, but to do so via terror methods. While I have sympathy for the average Iraqi who feels "when are you Americans ever going to leave" and who is very suspicious of any promise "when things are settled down" the explicit use of terror and undisciplined mayhem to, among other things, throw the UN out, scare off any foreign aid, and for that matter foreign investment in a nation whose infrastructure was left to rot by Saddam's slash and burn management methods, is a policy of Terrorism no matter how you slice it.

Terror is counterproductive to Iraq's future as a republic, regardless of its shape.

If you choose to sustain Terror as an active policy, you are a Terrorist.

Churchill bombed one city as a reprisal.

Al Douri, Sadr, and others have committed to a continuing campaign of lawlessness and terror to get back into power.

No, Chaer, it is not the same. Context, policy, and method are different.

Occhi