A speculation

I was among those who predicted the invasion of Iraq would be bloodier than it proved to be. For the first two weeks or so, that estimate looked sound, as the Pentagon was reluctantly forced to admit that, contrary to prewar assurances, this was no "cakewalk" and resistance was much stiffer than anticipated.

But as US forces neared Baghdad, that resistance seemed to dissolve. In retrospect, it seems odd that the attack got easier just at the point you'd expect it to get harder; nonetheless, at the time I was among those who concluded that the Iraqi army had put up a decent fight but had simply cracked in the face of overwhelmingly superior firepower.

But what if the sudden disappearance of serious military opposition was not a sign of defeat but of a change of tactics? The idea was floated at the time but I was unconvinced. Now I wonder if I was too hasty.

"CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong," headlines a Guardian story on the new, "bleak" CIA assessment of the situation in Iraq. The story notes that "such a figure was speculative, but it does indicate a deep-rooted revolt on a far greater scale than the Pentagon had led the administration to believe." The resistance, a source is quoted as saying, "is broad, strong and getting stronger."

Indeed, the "escalating series of attacks" on US forces, attacks that "grow more sophisticated and deadly," have American officials believing that "elements within the resistance are starting to work in concert, or that one group has emerged as pre-eminent with growing numbers and sophistication." One official, Maj. Bryan Luke, went so far as to say that raids around Tikrit have uncovered evidence of a sophisticated Iraqi insurgency under a tightly controlled chain of command.

Even Donald Rumsfeld has been forced by reality to admit that the insurgents "are going to school on us. ... They watch what takes place, and then they make adjustments," which can't be other than a sign of some kind of active coordination.

Admittedly, such coordination may have developed on the fly. It wouldn't be the first time that isolated groups of rebels have come together under a single umbrella to combine their strengths. But in this case it seems to have come about rather quickly and I still wonder: Is it possible that the sudden disappearance of direct military resistance to the invasion was actually a fallback plan for the leadership in the event the attack could not be successfully repulsed? A plan that involved maintaining a surreptitious command structure, waging a low-level guerrilla campaign, and gathering support as the occupation proved more and more unpopular and less and less manageable?

Yes, that's just speculation and yes, I have no actual proof and yes, whether a sophisticated resistance was spontaneous or preplanned doesn't really matter a whole lot. But I still wonder....

Update: Did you know that "strengths" is the longest word in English which contains only one vowel? Just thought I'd mention it.