Gosh! Whoda thunk?

As reported by AP on Thursday, an "emerging understanding" is concluding that

[t]he Iraq insurgency is far larger than the 5,000 guerrillas previously thought to be at its core, U.S. military officials say, and it's being led by well-armed Iraqi Sunnis angry at being pushed from power alongside Saddam Hussein.

Although U.S. military analysts disagree over the exact size, dozens of regional cells, often led by tribal sheiks and inspired by Sunni Muslim imams, can call upon part-time fighters to boost forces to as high as 20,000 — an estimate reflected in the insurgency's continued strength after U.S. forces killed as many as 4,000 in April alone. ...

The developing intelligence picture of the insurgency contrasts with the commonly stated view in the Bush administration that the fighting is fueled by foreign warriors intent on creating an Islamic state.

Indeed, it's also at odds with the view the intelligence community itself was peddling just three weeks ago.

Washington, June 20 (Haaretz) - The radical Lebanese Shi'ite organization Hezbollah has been moving fighters to Iraq in recent months to battle American troops. According to American intelligence, the transfer has been carried out through Syria, following an Iranian initiative. The transit through Syrian territory is permitted by Damascus along its porous border with Iraq.

The Hezbollah fighters moving to Iraq are part of a broader force of pro-Iranian militants that operates in Iraq to destabilize the country and undermine the Americans there. ...

American officials said recently that Syria has not seriously responded to American demands to seal its border with Iraq against the transit of "foreign fighters."

Of course, Iraq was never to be the sole target of US might; there was always the talk of spreading the wealth, if you will. As William Rivers Pitt, editor of TruthOut.org put it last year, "Iraq is but the beginning, a pretense for a wider conflict." I have been convinced for some time that there are those in the administration who are actively trying to lay the groundwork for the next military adventure, with the internal argument being not if, but only which target - Iran or Syria - and when. (You might want to take a peek at this post from November 23, featuring Douglas Feith openly saying that the Pentagon is studying the lessons of Iraq "to ensure that the next U.S. takeover of a foreign country goes more smoothly," as the Los Angeles Times puts it.)

In fact, earlier this year the signs of a possible extended war in the near future were clearly there:

- In January, Jane's Intelligence Digest was reporting on the possibility of the US deliberately provoking a military confrontation with Syria and David Kay was hinting that the unfound Iraqi WMDs may have been moved to Syria in the weeks preceding the war.

- In February, Israel announced it had launched a "campaign" aimed at ousting Syria from Lebanon and followed that up a week later by saying it would continue its "selective assassination" policy, particularly targeting "Islamic Jihad members who take orders from Iran and Damascus," as Haaretz described it.

Those incidents, coming within three weeks of each other, raised alarm bells in my head - but of course, that was way back in the old days, when the neocons could still tell themselves (and us) that the Iraqi resistance was just a bunch of "dead-enders" along with "foreign terrorists" falling for our masterfully clever "flypaper strategy." But conditions since have allowed for no practical way to undertake (or even risk) a direct confrontation with Syria (or, for that matter, Iran, which seems to have gotten some special attention of late). Still, as the above June 20 item makes clear, neither the idea not its justification has disappeared; they've merely been shelved.

However, as the latest news shows, at least some of the thick heads have finally had their "duh!" moment (although I strongly doubt any of the WHS* are among them). I base that on what I believe is even more important than any new estimate of the size of the insurgency: the gradual, grudging admission of it's composition. Getting back to the AP report:

"We're not at the forefront of a jihadist war here," said a U.S. military official in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity. ...

Most of the insurgents are fighting for a bigger role in a secular society, not a Taliban-like Islamic state, the military official said. Almost all the guerrillas are Iraqis, even those launching some of the devastating car bombings normally blamed on foreigners....

At the orders of Gen. John Abizaid, the U.S. commander of Mideast operations, Army analysts looked closely for evidence that Iraq's insurgency was adopting extreme Islamist goals, the official said. Analysts learned that ridding Iraq of U.S. troops was the motivator for most insurgents, not the formation of an Islamic state. ...

Many in the U.S. intelligence community have been making similar points, but have encountered political opposition from the Bush administration, a State Department official in Washington said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.

Civilian analysts generally agreed, saying U.S. and Iraqi officials have long overemphasized the roles of foreign fighters and Muslim extremists.

Now, we should not go to the opposite extreme and say that if the US pulls out, conflict will stop; indeed there's every reason to think it would continue, as I noted most recently on June 14 and June 30.

But the fact is, even if it's true that pulling out will not stop the bloodshed, it remains true that the bloodshed will not stop until we pull out.

Set the date and get out.

*WHS = White House Sociopaths