• Home

Tom Fenton, in his fourth decade with CBS News, has been the network's Senior European Correspondent since 1979. He comments on international events from his "Listening Post" in London, and other parts of the world as well.

---

There is a growing conviction among some foreign observers and American intelligence experts — though apparently not yet in the Pentagon — that what is happening now in Iraq is not just the reaction to the American occupation by a small group of "dead-enders" (as suggested by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld) or a spontaneous insurgency.

Indeed, these observers believe that the suicide bombers, the roadside bombs and the attacks on Iraqi police and other so-called "collaborators" in Mosul and the Sunni towns in the Tigris valley are part of an organized guerrilla war planned by Saddam Hussein prior to the invasion. Even the widespread looting, and the attacks on water and electricity and petroleum facilities are being carried out by former members of his security forces.

The reasoning of these observers goes as follows: Saddam Hussein knew he could not defeat the invasion forces; indeed, his army did not even try. When the coalition attacked Iraq, entire Iraqi divisions melted away. Even the elite Republican Guards did not fight. The various military, paramilitary and security forces simply went underground and became part of the population. Arms were distributed and stashed throughout the country. The suicide bombers, who are not just a spontaneous phenomenon but have to be trained and motivated, were part of Saddam's plan.

One such observer, Shlomo Avineri, a former Israeli government official who now teaches at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, believes all of this was part of a deliberate and well-planned strategy and, he concludes, "it appears to be working." In short, he says, Saddam Hussein opted to wage what is commonly known as asymmetrical warfare — a conflict in which weaker forces use guerrilla tactics to defeat a much stronger force.

The events of the past few weeks do seem to point to a well-organized and -planned campaign against the coalition forces. As soon as American troops smash resistance in one place, such as Fallujah, it pops up elsewhere. Hundreds of well-armed and organized insurgents attacked the key city of Mosul earlier this month and took nine police stations; the stations have been recaptured, but the attacks caused mass desertions among the police force. Throughout the smaller towns in the Tigris Valley, local Iraqi police and government officials have disappeared or deserted. All of this is a campaign to stretch the American forces to the limit and make a mockery of the American exit strategy of nationwide elections in January and the eventual transfer of responsibility for security to newly trained Iraqi forces.

The Iraqi resistance forces had already waged two earlier offensive campaigns this year, one in April and again in August. After each offensive, they regroup, rearm and re-attack several months later. The election in a little over two months time could be the target of their next offensive.

One of the smartest critics of the American campaign in Iraq, the private intelligence service "Stratfor," believes that the CIA's failure to warn President Bush of Saddam Hussein's war plan was one of its greatest mistakes, second only to its failure to realize that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

If the current quagmire (a term many observers have hesitated to use until recently) is the work of the defeated Iraqi dictator, what about the man himself? Saddam Hussein is in American custody, waiting to be tried for war crimes, but will not be tried by Americans. He is supposed to be judged by an Iraqi justice system that is still in shambles. Avineri wonders whether it is impossible for Saddam Hussein to stage a comeback. He cautions that it is "highly unlikely," but adds, "stranger things have happened."