Iraq, contd...

by eriposte

If there is one thing I've learnt in my life, it is that the "devil is in the details".

After my previous post on Iraq, I spent some time thinking about what detail needs to be gotten right in Iraq to solve the problem we have. Today, as I was reading Juan Cole, I came across this comment of his:

Moreover, a counter-insurgency is not always best fought with large numbers. We had 500,000 men in Vietnam, and that did not go well. Counter-insurgency requires political successes in which you get the people on your side and manage to entice the insurgent leaders into giving up violence. (Hint: So far little sign of successful counter-insurgency in Iraq.)

This raises an important question. After all, American troops have been there for over 2 years now. They obviously know for a fact which group or groups are really behind the insurgency. I don't mean the public relations news release type stuff blaming Al Qaeda for everything. I mean who (as in which group or groups - with names) is *really* behind the insurgency. Perhaps readers or bloggers who have been following this closely may have some insight into it? Perhaps Prof. Cole himself has some ideas on this? (*fixed wording for clarity)