Black Box Recorder

US military and the "Saddam loyalist" line: a study in not keeping the story straight

The talking heads of the US military - i.e., those not being shot at or killed on a daily basis - are now having trouble keeping the story straight about who exactly are attacking US soldiers in Iraq. This Reuters article, citing one Col. Teeples, paints an unlikely picture of the ordinary Iraqi guerilla:

The standard explanation:

U.S. military officials have blamed the violence on former Baath party members and guerrillas loyal to Saddam, who was toppled by a U.S.-led invasion on April 9.

According to the standard explanation, we have people motivated by ideology and political factors carrying out attacks on US soldiers. Now compare this to who Teeples thinks are responsible for the attacks:

"We have been attacked by subversive elements and I believe that these subversive elements are young males that can be paid a lot of money and receive weapons from former Baathists and former regime loyalists," Teeples said.

"It is inviting for them to set up an explosive device or to shoot an RPG at a coalition force because they are going to get paid a great deal of money for doing it.".

Teeples, contrary to his higher-ups, seems to think that they are not motivated by ideology/politics, but by money, i.e., that they are mercenaries. But wait - there's more than meets the eye in the complex, inscrutable world of Iraq:

"I think that there are some that are unemployed that are just not happy with their situation and they are told by subversive leaders that they can make some money and get rid of coalition forces at the same time," he said.

So it seems that they are motivated after all by some kind of political feelings, in addition to money, if they are "not happy" and they want to "get rid of" US soldiers. But here's where the problem comes in: if these supposed guerillas are so motivated by money as to attack a vastly better-armed enemy, successfully so far, as Mano Negra has indicated, why would they want to "get rid of" the US soldiers? Wouldn't that be bad business for mercenaries? Wouldn't they want US soldiers to hang around for as long as possible to continue providing a source of revenues? Wouldn't they be "happy", as opposed to "not happy", with the situation?

Teeples offers one last nugget of "analysis", which should really be quite enough to convince anyone still believing the ridiculous "Saddam-loyalist" "explanation" to wake up:

"I think there are also some Saddam Fedayeen, some people that are knowledgeable of weapons, knowledgeable of how to fire and how to set up explosives that are also being coerced by some of the regime loyalists that have money."

In addition to "Saddam loyalists", mercenaries who have no business sense, and disgruntled Iraqis, we have now have, according to Teeples, guerillas who have been "coerced" - by money, no less - into carrying out increasingly lethal attacks against the most powerful army on earth, instead of walking over to the Americans, surrendering, and getting more money than they could get for killing most of the US army single-handedly by turning in one of these "regime loyalists" with money. Right... lobotomy, anyone?

Who exactly is attacking the US army? Better not listen to the US army if you want to have any kind of clue.