You said "You may not like it, but not everyone who worked for him was a terrorist; some of them wanted the occupying force to get the fuck out of their country". If you had said not everyone in the insurgency was a terrorist, you would have been right. But you said that about Zarqawi's organization specifically, which doesn't hold up; they're terrorists, pure and simple.
|
Originally Posted by Jerrica
I just happen to believe that Zarqawi's group is one of the largest and better equipped/trained, thus representing more of a military than a militia. I also believe that those fighting against the Americans for reasons of sovereignty as opposed to religion would find it most expedient to ally themselves with the strongest internal resistance movement, which appears to have been Zarqawi's group.
|
Zarqawi's organization represented, according to U.S. military estimates, 12% of the insurgency; that still leaves 88% who aren't Al Queda. Further, the jihadist types are also not overly loved by the Iraqi nationalist types and vice versa (Hamas' relationship with Fatah makes for a worthwhile comparison). I somehow doubt that those 12% are the strongest force fighting in the insurgency.
Nor are they likely the best trained and equipped, since the Baathist and Sunni insurgents undoubtedly have former Army, Republican Guard and Mukhabarat personnel at their disposal, and since one of the biggest blunders the CPA made was disbanding the Iraqi Army without disarming it first.
Al Queda in Iraq may have been the most vicious group in the insurgency, but that doesn't make them the strongest.
There's nowhere I can't reach.