Michael Pollak wrote:

> > This (absence of basic services etc.) has been the case in Iraq for last
> > ten years under UN sanctions.
>
> Actually this isn't true, Ulhas.  Iraqis were lacking many things, but
> they weren't lacking power, water and safety against random violent crime.

Yes, you are right, but Iraqis have lived in appalling conditions for last
ten years. Everything depends on whether occupation forces can restore basic
service and how quickly they do it. And whether occupation forces can
restore Iraqi oil industry and restore oil exports is the next vital
question.

> Secondly, if they ever consciously compare it to the sanctions years, it
> probably redoubles their anger, because they blamed all those deprivations
> on us, not Saddam.  This would be seen as a continuation and
> intensification of our hatred for them.

You may be right, I don't know much about the current mood of Iraqis.

> If all you need to have a decisive effect is a bombing or ambush or
> sabotage every other day, it takes a miniscule amount to keep it going.
> Very small groups with any kind of anti-American ideology you wish to
> mention can keep that going in a huge country. 0.001% of the population
> can keep it going.  So long as the rest are furious and feel no loyalty to
> us, they're not going to turn them in.

How will these fighters maintain their self-confidence, morale etc.?

> > I don't know if Ba'athist ideology is a credible one today, after
> > decades of Ba'athist rule/misrule.
>
> I think we're talking past each other.

This was in response to Dwanye Monroe's post, not yours.

 >My whole proposition is that *you
> don't need a credible ideology* to resist *when there isn't a state or a
> functioning service system.* Nor do you need a large force nor an enduring
> ideology to keep that force together.  Because it takes one
> hundred-thousandth of the effort to perpetuate anarchy as it does to
> overcome a state.

But why should they be satisfied with the effort to perpetuate anarchy? They
would want to build a new Iraqi state. That requires much more than random
acts of terror.

> The force necessary to dislodge Saddam was a million times more than the
> force necessary to scare off American civilian electrical workers on
> contract.

Today's newspapers report that 32 US soldiers have died in combat operations
since 1 May. About 40-45 casualties have been attributed to other causes.
What is the level of casualties that US public opinion would be unwilling
accept?

> Again, my whole point is that having an occupation that doens't command an
> established state makes the Iraqi and Afghan situations unprecedented.

There is no sign that US or NATO are planning to leave Afghanistan in the
next few months. That is almost 2 years of occupation of Afghanistan. Why
random acts of terror have not driven US forces out of Afghanistan?

> Maybe this will all end up working out simply.  But there is no reason on
> the surface to think that the experience of any previous third world
> resistance movement will provide any guide.  At least I can't think of
> any.

I agree.

> If you think that's wrong, and that not having a state and a functioning
> economy changes nothing essential in the resistance equation, by all means
> make your counter-argument.

The question is whether the aim of Iraqi Resistance is to create a state and
rebuild Iraqi
economy on that basis. If their aim is merely to perpetuate anarchy, they
can use tactics you describe.

Ulhas