Dramatis Personae

"Interesting to see who is still out there…  Izzat

Only two captured since the end of 2003 and the following still out and about – and everyone wonders why the insurgency is going so well:

6.Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri LTG
Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) Vice-Chairman / Northern Region Commander / Inner Circle/ Deputy Secretary General, Ba’th Party Regional Command / Deputy Commander, Armed Forces

At Large

7.Hani abd al-Latif al-Tilfah al-Tikriti COL
Director, Special Security Organization (SSO) And Responsible For Security And Investigations (MUDIRIYAH NUMBER TWO); Assistant To Qusay; Saddam’s Nephew

At Large

14.Sayf al-Din Fulayyih Hasan Taha al-Rawi LTG
Chief Of Iraqi Republican Guard (RG)

At Large

15.Rafi abd al-Latif Tilfah al-Tikriti MG
Director, Directorate Of General Security (DGS)

At Large

16.Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti LTG
Director, Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS)

At Large

21.Rukan Razuki abd al-Ghafar Sulayman al-Nasiri Bg
Saddam’s Senior Bodyguard/head-Tribal Affairs/inner Circle

At Large

40.abd al-Baqi abd al-Karim al-Abdallah al-Sadun
Central Ba’ath Party Regional Command Chairman, Diyala Region

At Large

44.Yahya abdallah al-Ubaydi
Central Ba’ath Party Regional Chairman, Basrah Governorate

At Large

45.Nayif Shindakh Thamir Ghalib
Ba’ath Party Regional Chairman An-Najaf Governorate

At Large

49.Rashid Taan Kazim
Central Ba’ath Party Regional Chairman, Anbar Governorate

At Large"



Sulla provides this list of the people who were on the deck of cards and who are still at large.  When this leadership and the money it still possesses is "married" to the hundreds and hundreds of former Iraqi army officers and their men who are available for employment by the insurgents then it is no wonder that the more or less nationalist leadership of the militarily effective part of the insurgencies prospers.

Added to this there are local Islamist insurgents, foreign jihadis, tribals and villagers opposed to us for reason satisfactory to them.  Is it any wonder that attacks are ever increasing in complexity, sophistication and the numbers of fighters involved in particular operations?

And then, there is what the US is calling "sectarian violence."

If this is not civil war, what is it?

Pat Lang

This entry was posted in Current Affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Dramatis Personae

  1. zanzibar says:

    PL, does this civil war get worse if we pull out? In your opinion what is the best resolution?
    Obviously the Bushites lit the tinder box and now want to focus on mitigating the PR aspect of the disaster.

  2. Curious says:

    But we got Zarqawi’s No.2!
    come on. that got to count for something. I mean we captures dozens of those No.2’s
    (yeah that was a snark)

  3. Eric says:

    But they sure the hell brought down the Lodi Two:

  4. b says:

    “If this is not civil war, what is it?”
    A national war against a foreign occupation force.

  5. W. Patrick Lang says:

    Too simple. your ideology is showing. pl

  6. ckrantz says:

    Anarchy seems to be a better word than civil war with all the fighting within groups.
    The only thing they can agree about is attacking the foreigners. Reminds me of Afghanistann in the 80s.
    Isn’t al-Douri supposed to be dead by the way?

  7. W. Patrick Lang says:

    Which one? pl

  8. ckrantz says:

    Izzat Ibrahim was reported dead a while back if I remember correctly. He was supposed to have had leukemia or some similar disease.

  9. rpe says:

    Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri is said to have been a member of the Sufi brotherhoods and to have been hidden by them. I have also read that the Sufis are suspected of being behind a not insignificant part of the resistance but hard facts about them are hard to come by. I suspect that it could be a case of those who know don’t say and those who say don’t know. If anyone knows anything about the Sufis in Iraq and their participation in the war, I would appreciate hearing it.

  10. confusedponderer says:

    Just to feed my curiousity: You’re talking about Suifs … I read two bits that seem to contradict each other, maybe someone here can help me putting it into context.
    Bit (a) was that in Chechnya as a result of the war traditional Sufism had been pushed back by Salafist Islam, also as a result of Saudi funding and support. Iirc one problem Salafist have with Sufism is that they are too mystic, straying from the Koran.
    Bit (b) I read was someone mentioning that modern Salafism had Sufi roots.
    If that is right, it seems to me the two seem not be opposed. I find it plausible that religious leanings are not absolute and strict and that that there emerges common ground, depending on the believers and their background.
    But then I find the friction described in bit (a) plausible, considering that Salafism seems quite strict from what I read.
    PS: Are Salafism and Wahabi Islam synonymous?
    I would be happy if anyone could here enlight me somewhat, and/ or give me a hint where to read.

Comments are closed.