Al Queda in Iraq

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hedo,

I appreciate you presenting these excellent articles.

Your commentary about the media and opponents of the war surrendering, is also right on.

Damn, guys on this forum trip over each other waving the white flag and making sure negatives are highlighted at all times.

Further, these same people seem to be obsessed with discounting positive developments.

From a purely American standpoint, you’d think it would be a relief to see good news. Since the U.S. isn’t pulling out any time soon (no matter how many guys repeatedly throw in the towel) you’d think your articles would be cause for some celebration.

Hedo, would you say that this counter-insurgency group is somewhat unique? Would it be fair to say that it is a good example of the Pentagon (RUMSFELD), adapting to the situation on the ground?

I’d be curious as to your thoughts.

JeffR[/quote]

I think the insuregency is unique in several regards.

It is unsupported to a great degree. It has no support beyond it’s borders other then technical help from Iran. It is also widely supported in the media, similar to the VC in Vietnam. Ultimately it is the allies they have in the media that will do more harm to the war efforts then anything the enemy can try.

22

[quote]hedo wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Hedo,

I appreciate you presenting these excellent articles.

Your commentary about the media and opponents of the war surrendering, is also right on.

Damn, guys on this forum trip over each other waving the white flag and making sure negatives are highlighted at all times.

Further, these same people seem to be obsessed with discounting positive developments.

From a purely American standpoint, you’d think it would be a relief to see good news. Since the U.S. isn’t pulling out any time soon (no matter how many guys repeatedly throw in the towel) you’d think your articles would be cause for some celebration.

Hedo, would you say that this counter-insurgency group is somewhat unique? Would it be fair to say that it is a good example of the Pentagon (RUMSFELD), adapting to the situation on the ground?

I’d be curious as to your thoughts.

JeffR

I think the insuregency is unique in several regards.

It is unsupported to a great degree. It has no support beyond it’s borders other then technical help from Iran. It is also widely supported in the media, similar to the VC in Vietnam. Ultimately it is the allies they have in the media that will do more harm to the war efforts then anything the enemy can try.
[/quote]

No support beyond it’s borders?? Whoa, whoa, what on earth are you TALKING about?? Saudi donors are giving BOATLOADS to the insurgency. Are you not aware of this? And the Syrian government has been quietly helping the insurgents, both ex-Bathists (with whom they’ve always had close relationships) and jihadists with money, material, transportation, turning a blind eye, letting them set up training camps in Syria, etc., etc. AND, Iran’s support is no small piece of the puzzle. It’s quite major. Please read this; it’s VERY telling:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/insurgency/interviews/ware.html

23

[quote]Damici wrote:
Who ever said anything about throwing in the white towel??[/quote]

Yeah, way to create another straw horse Jeff. There’s a difference between trying to be realistic about Iraq and being defeatist. And in case you missed the point of my post, which is likely, I think we should be staying in Iraq for a lot longer than most Republicans do. I just kind of doubt it’s going to happen that way.

24

[quote]hedo wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Hedo,

I appreciate you presenting these excellent articles.

Your commentary about the media and opponents of the war surrendering, is also right on.

Damn, guys on this forum trip over each other waving the white flag and making sure negatives are highlighted at all times.

Further, these same people seem to be obsessed with discounting positive developments.

From a purely American standpoint, you’d think it would be a relief to see good news. Since the U.S. isn’t pulling out any time soon (no matter how many guys repeatedly throw in the towel) you’d think your articles would be cause for some celebration.

Hedo, would you say that this counter-insurgency group is somewhat unique? Would it be fair to say that it is a good example of the Pentagon (RUMSFELD), adapting to the situation on the ground?

I’d be curious as to your thoughts.

JeffR

I think the insuregency is unique in several regards.

It is unsupported to a great degree. It has no support beyond it’s borders other then technical help from Iran. It is also widely supported in the media, similar to the VC in Vietnam. Ultimately it is the allies they have in the media that will do more harm to the war efforts then anything the enemy can try.
[/quote]

I don’t think anyone in the mainstream Western media (your beloved MSM) supports the insurgency. There’s a world of difference between pessimism about the war effort (justifiable or not) and frustration at how badly the war has been bungled by those in charge, and sympathy with the fascists and fanatics in Iraq. I haven’t seen any evidence of that, even in papers as left-wing as the LA Times.

25

[quote]hedo wrote:
I think the insuregency is unique in several regards.

It is unsupported to a great degree. It has no support beyond it’s borders other then technical help from Iran. It is also widely supported in the media, similar to the VC in Vietnam. Ultimately it is the allies they have in the media that will do more harm to the war efforts then anything the enemy can try.[/quote]

Hedo,

I’m not trying to disagree, but there are some interesting elements to this issue.

  1. Are we only seeing the hotheads who can’t stomach having the US on Middle East soil right now? If so, what happens if and when the US does leave the region?

  2. If the US does not leave the region, then the discussion becomes somewhat moot. Staying semi-permanently to keep Iraq in order is not really a war, nor is it something that seems to be an actual win.

Wouldn’t it be nice to pull out of there some day, not have troops at risk, and not spend untold billions of dollars providing a military police force for another country when there are issues at home that could use those resources also?

Would you be so kind as to define what it means, or what you mean, with respect to actually winning this effort?

26

Oh, and for the record, I too think we NEED to try to win this thing, and shouldn’t even THINK of pulling the troops out for the next . . . many years, probably far longer than even Bush is thinking of keeping them there. You already hear the administration make the occasional murmur about reducing troop levels to X number by the end of 2006 or whenever, which I think is pure insanity.

We’re badly undermanned out there, and don’t control the ground for the most part. It just goes to show that even the “unflappable” GWB is feeling the political heat. Sad.

27

I disagree. I think it is nearing time to start drawing down our troop level.

The Iraqi armed forces are getting better and stronger. It should now be up to them to fight the battle.

Our people are targets, pure and simple.

If Iraq won’t hold together so be it.

28

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I disagree. I think it is nearing time to start drawing down our troop level.

The Iraqi armed forces are getting better and stronger. It should now be up to them to fight the battle.
[/quote]

Why on earth would be we start drawing down our troop levels now? If you think we’re doing badly, that would basically abandon the country to the insurgents and/or civil war. If you think we’re doing well, why would we pull out at our moment of triumph (a case can be made that this happened in Vietnam)? Aside from concern about “breaking” the Army, I can’t understand any argument for a pullout.

And do you really think the Iraqi Army is much of a fighting force, ignoring the larger issue of sectarianism and its influence on the IA’s loyalties?

The old footprint argument. The insurgents mostly target the Iraqi police and army, because they know they are a weaker target. This has been the case for a long time now.

Wow, that’s a lot more defeatist than anything I’ve ever posted. Watch out for a Bush talking-points attack from JeffR any minute now.

29

[quote]Damici wrote:
Oh, and for the record, I too think we NEED to try to win this thing, and shouldn’t even THINK of pulling the troops out for the next . . . many years, probably far longer than even Bush is thinking of keeping them there. You already hear the administration make the occasional murmur about reducing troop levels to X number by the end of 2006 or whenever, which I think is pure insanity.

We’re badly undermanned out there, and don’t control the ground for the most part. It just goes to show that even the “unflappable” GWB is feeling the political heat. Sad.[/quote]

Yup. It’s more rhetoric than reality, like most things this administration does. We should be prepared to be in Iraq and Afghanistan in substantial numbers for a LONG time if we want to leave anything of worth behind. Take a look at the Malayan Emergency, the textbook case of how to win one of these. The British were there for over a decade, and that was a much smaller and more isolated insurgency than what we’re confronted with in Iraq.

30

[quote]Damici wrote:
hedo wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Hedo,

I appreciate you presenting these excellent articles.

Your commentary about the media and opponents of the war surrendering, is also right on.

Damn, guys on this forum trip over each other waving the white flag and making sure negatives are highlighted at all times.

Further, these same people seem to be obsessed with discounting positive developments.

From a purely American standpoint, you’d think it would be a relief to see good news. Since the U.S. isn’t pulling out any time soon (no matter how many guys repeatedly throw in the towel) you’d think your articles would be cause for some celebration.

Hedo, would you say that this counter-insurgency group is somewhat unique? Would it be fair to say that it is a good example of the Pentagon (RUMSFELD), adapting to the situation on the ground?

I’d be curious as to your thoughts.

JeffR

I think the insuregency is unique in several regards.

It is unsupported to a great degree. It has no support beyond it’s borders other then technical help from Iran. It is also widely supported in the media, similar to the VC in Vietnam. Ultimately it is the allies they have in the media that will do more harm to the war efforts then anything the enemy can try.

No support beyond it’s borders?? Whoa, whoa, what on earth are you TALKING about?? Saudi donors are giving BOATLOADS to the insurgency. Are you not aware of this? And the Syrian government has been quietly helping the insurgents, both ex-Bathists (with whom they’ve always had close relationships) and jihadists with money, material, transportation, turning a blind eye, letting them set up training camps in Syria, etc., etc. AND, Iran’s support is no small piece of the puzzle. It’s quite major. Please read this; it’s VERY telling:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/insurgency/interviews/ware.html
[/quote]

Saudi money has been effectively cut off. The Saudi’s fear Al-Queda more then anyone. Al-Queda in Saudi has been depleted of forces for months.

Frontline aside…do you really think Syria/ Saudi Arabia is providing material support these days?

31

[quote]Damici wrote:
Oh, and for the record, I too think we NEED to try to win this thing, and shouldn’t even THINK of pulling the troops out for the next . . . many years, probably far longer than even Bush is thinking of keeping them there. You already hear the administration make the occasional murmur about reducing troop levels to X number by the end of 2006 or whenever, which I think is pure insanity.

We’re badly undermanned out there, and don’t control the ground for the most part. It just goes to show that even the “unflappable” GWB is feeling the political heat. Sad.[/quote]

Don’t control the ground? Where in Iraq can US forces not operate at will?

32

Vroom,

I think winning the effort means leaving a stable government behind, that remains friendly to the US. The Govt. we leave may not be perfect but it should be better then a murdering dictator.

I posted a tactical analysis of operations in Iraq against Al-Queda. Of course every discussion of Iraq has to meander but that really wasn’t the point I was making.

When I state the insurgency has an ally in the media I don’t mean to imply that it is overt support. Hoewever the media is not critical of the insurgency. They have been referred to in a postive light. The media has claimed that the insurgency is strong when in reality it is weak and getting weaker. The media has worn out the term quagmire with regard to Iraq while ignoring the story of the devestation the terrorist networks have suffered?

A few of the posters dissented with some interesting comments. Analysis of combat tactics is always subject to various perspectives which I find interesting.

33

[quote]hedo wrote:
Damici wrote:
hedo wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Hedo,

I appreciate you presenting these excellent articles.

Your commentary about the media and opponents of the war surrendering, is also right on.

Damn, guys on this forum trip over each other waving the white flag and making sure negatives are highlighted at all times.

Further, these same people seem to be obsessed with discounting positive developments.

From a purely American standpoint, you’d think it would be a relief to see good news. Since the U.S. isn’t pulling out any time soon (no matter how many guys repeatedly throw in the towel) you’d think your articles would be cause for some celebration.

Hedo, would you say that this counter-insurgency group is somewhat unique? Would it be fair to say that it is a good example of the Pentagon (RUMSFELD), adapting to the situation on the ground?

I’d be curious as to your thoughts.

JeffR

I think the insuregency is unique in several regards.

It is unsupported to a great degree. It has no support beyond it’s borders other then technical help from Iran. It is also widely supported in the media, similar to the VC in Vietnam. Ultimately it is the allies they have in the media that will do more harm to the war efforts then anything the enemy can try.

No support beyond it’s borders?? Whoa, whoa, what on earth are you TALKING about?? Saudi donors are giving BOATLOADS to the insurgency. Are you not aware of this? And the Syrian government has been quietly helping the insurgents, both ex-Bathists (with whom they’ve always had close relationships) and jihadists with money, material, transportation, turning a blind eye, letting them set up training camps in Syria, etc., etc. AND, Iran’s support is no small piece of the puzzle. It’s quite major. Please read this; it’s VERY telling:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/insurgency/interviews/ware.html

Saudi money has been effectively cut off. The Saudi’s fear Al-Queda more then anyone. Al-Queda in Saudi has been depleted of forces for months.

Frontline aside…do you really think Syria/ Saudi Arabia is providing material support these days?
[/quote]

Cut off?? You’re joking, right? I’m not talking about the Saudi government, I’m talking about wealthy Saudis (lots of them) who support the insurgency, just like some of them support (and fund) Bin Laden. Truthfully, no one can just “cut it off.” It’s not really possible.

The Syrian government? Yeah, we know that they are, at the very least, looking the other way big-time, and more likely assisting the insurgents here and there. There ARE known to be insurgent training camps on Syrian soil, Zarqawi is said to occasionally go back and forth across the border, BUSLOADS of jihadists regularly cross the border from Syria into Iraq (they’re mainly Syrian jihadists). The border guards, police, military, etc. in Syria know what’s going on and don’t stop it. Some senior former regime types are thought to be living in Syria with the assistance of the Syrian government. Need I go on . . . ? And that’s not even mentioning Iran.

34

[quote]hedo wrote:
Damici wrote:
Oh, and for the record, I too think we NEED to try to win this thing, and shouldn’t even THINK of pulling the troops out for the next . . . many years, probably far longer than even Bush is thinking of keeping them there. You already hear the administration make the occasional murmur about reducing troop levels to X number by the end of 2006 or whenever, which I think is pure insanity.

We’re badly undermanned out there, and don’t control the ground for the most part. It just goes to show that even the “unflappable” GWB is feeling the political heat. Sad.

Don’t control the ground? Where in Iraq can US forces not operate at will?
[/quote]

If they mount a tacit, offensive military campaign at a given time, of course they (US forces) can “re-take” any piece of ground, or city when they choose to. But we don’t have nearly enough troops in-country to KEEP them there and KEEP control of those cities, hence the reason we’ve had to “re-take” Mosul, Ramadi, etc. numerous times, mounting big, offensive efforts each time. Right now much of Ramadi, I believe, is insurgent controlled.

MOST of Baghdad, from what I’ve read, bar the Green Zone, is insurgent controlled. (Again, read the article I just posted). Try walking oustide the Green Zone if you’re a westerner for more than a few minutes and returning with your head still attached. Until recently, Tal Afar was totally insurgent controlled.

130,000 troops in a largely unfriendly country cannot control the ground in that country. It’s not physically possible.

35

More moonbat talking points from a right wingnuttery online rag.

Pathetic.

Freedom’s on the march!

We have Al Queda on the run!

ROTFLMFAO!!!

36

[quote]hedo wrote:
Vroom,

I think winning the effort means leaving a stable government behind, that remains friendly to the US. The Govt. we leave may not be perfect but it should be better then a murdering dictator.

I posted a tactical analysis of operations in Iraq against Al-Queda. Of course every discussion of Iraq has to meander but that really wasn’t the point I was making.

When I state the insurgency has an ally in the media I don’t mean to imply that it is overt support. Hoewever the media is not critical of the insurgency. They have been referred to in a postive light. The media has claimed that the insurgency is strong when in reality it is weak and getting weaker. The media has worn out the term quagmire with regard to Iraq while ignoring the story of the devestation the terrorist networks have suffered?

A few of the posters dissented with some interesting comments. Analysis of combat tactics is always subject to various perspectives which I find interesting.
[/quote]

Hedo, the terrorists (Al Qaeda and their likeminded ilk), as I’ve mentioned, are but a very small percentage of the insurgency. The homegrown Iraqi Sunnis (largely secular, non-fundamentalists) are the bulk of it. They are nowhere mere being dismantled or removed. It’s kind of hard to remove thousands upon thousands of people from where they live, and can fade right into the population.

37

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hedo,

I appreciate you presenting these excellent articles.

Your commentary about the media and opponents of the war surrendering, is also right on.

Damn, guys on this forum trip over each other waving the white flag and making sure negatives are highlighted at all times.

Further, these same people seem to be obsessed with discounting positive developments.

From a purely American standpoint, you’d think it would be a relief to see good news. Since the U.S. isn’t pulling out any time soon (no matter how many guys repeatedly throw in the towel) you’d think your articles would be cause for some celebration.

Hedo, would you say that this counter-insurgency group is somewhat unique? Would it be fair to say that it is a good example of the Pentagon (RUMSFELD), adapting to the situation on the ground?

I’d be curious as to your thoughts.

JeffR[/quote]

Good news!!!

In the chaos of Iraq, one project is on target: a giant US embassy
The Times
May 03, 2006
THE question puzzles and enrages a city: how is it that the Americans cannot keep the electricity running in Baghdad for more than a couple of hours a day, yet still manage to build themselves the biggest embassy on Earth?

Irritation grows as residents deprived of air-conditioning and running water three years after the US-led invasion watch the massive US Embassy they call “George W’s palace” rising from the banks of the Tigris.

In the pavement cafes, people moan that the structure is bigger than anything Saddam Hussein built.
[…]

In a week when Washington revealed a startling list of missed deadlines and overspending on building projects, Congress was told that the bill for the embassy was $592 million.

…complete with hot and cold running kool-aid.

News so good, the “liberal media” doesn’t even mention it – bastards.

38

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I disagree. I think it is nearing time to start drawing down our troop level.

The Iraqi armed forces are getting better and stronger. It should now be up to them to fight the battle.

Why on earth would be we start drawing down our troop levels now? If you think we’re doing badly, that would basically abandon the country to the insurgents and/or civil war. If you think we’re doing well, why would we pull out at our moment of triumph (a case can be made that this happened in Vietnam)? Aside from concern about “breaking” the Army, I can’t understand any argument for a pullout.

And do you really think the Iraqi Army is much of a fighting force, ignoring the larger issue of sectarianism and its influence on the IA’s loyalties?

Our people are targets, pure and simple.

The old footprint argument. The insurgents mostly target the Iraqi police and army, because they know they are a weaker target. This has been the case for a long time now.

If Iraq won’t hold together so be it.

Wow, that’s a lot more defeatist than anything I’ve ever posted. Watch out for a Bush talking-points attack from JeffR any minute now.[/quote]

The Iraqi Army is far better than you give credit.

I don’t want immediate withdrawl, just draw down.

The foriegn fighters are almost inconsequential at this point. We do not have to worry about Al Qaeda ending up in power like they were in Afghanistan. This was a real worry a year ago. Not any longer.

It is not the US job to hold together an artificial country. Either they can overcome the sectarian violence or they cannot. The US cannot change this.

39

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
More moonbat talking points from a right wingnuttery online rag.

Pathetic.

Freedom’s on the march!

We have Al Queda on the run!

ROTFLMFAO!!![/quote]

Strategypage is a “right wing” publication?

Nuttery online rag?

Too funny!

You say your in the brokerage business. You haven’t heard of James Dunnigan and some of the folks he works for on the street?

The site is an analysis of strategy by someone who’s work is taught at military academies and war colleges in the US and abroad and has been since the 80’s.

If your going to try and dismiss something just because you disagree with it, you might want to look a little deeper into the target your going after.

40

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
…
News so good, the “liberal media” doesn’t even mention it – bastards.
[/quote]

I have seen many stories about the huge embassy we are building.