One of the main problems of dealing with terrorism seems to be that they don't show up on a battlefield to take on our military. Sort of 'super guerillas' since they don't even stick to one geographic locale, making them harder to attract and engage. Isn't Iraq providing us with the chance we couldn't get anywhere else, to engage Al Queda in one area? In an area where we are not popular but where they are not either. In an area where we are not popular but we are not blowing Iraqi police stations etc up? I would think the more action they undertake the more likely the Iraqi population is to report their presence, increasing the chances to eliminate them. I'm not saying it was planned that way, but it is giving us an opportunity we would not have had otherwise. As many point out, Al Queda is not that popular in Iraq so its not their home turf ala Afghanistan removing a further advantage they have in neighboring countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia.
well you still have the same problem, an enemy you can't see. you're right, it may be good for us, as well as other countries that we've drawn them to a single location (if that's true) but it isn't good for the Iraqi people, which isn't good for us.
Except that in a normal war, you have a limited number of enemies. You kill enough of the opponent's soldiers, and you win. This is because of pure numbers, as well as the demoralization of the population - they lose the will to wage war. With terrorism, killing them doesn't really do anything - especially when they don't mind dying. They have a virtual limitless supply of footsoldiers, especially compared to the rates we're killing them. If we were killing 200 or 300 a day, maybe we might have an effect. As it is, the 2 or 3 a day we kill can be replaced with no problems. The way you have to beat terrorism is to go after the leadership - that's the source of organization, resources, intelligence, inspiration, etc. Getting into a guerilla battle with terrorists is the one thing you really don't want to do - it gets our people killed, takes away *our* population's will to fight (as you've seen with the various polls), and really does nothing to slow the overall terrorist problem. Plus, it consumes a great deal of resources (including 150,000 soldiers) that could be otherwise used to go after leadership.
I don't think there is a limitless supply of either Al Queda members, nor of suicide bombers. And straight attrition of their ranks means they have to draw in more people to replace them. Those replacements are necessarily worse trained and less likely to be totally committed in the radical foaming at the mouth sword of god mentality. Remember, even the 9/11 guys weren't ALL committed to being suicide cases. Certainly killing the leadership is desirable. But that is not the only way to reduce terrorism (see bombing Libya). And the search for the leadership doesn't mean you don't try to get rid of the lower echelons of the terrorist structure. And if we can find their leadership we won't be dropping 150,000 troops on their heads (ie its not the same resources for one as the other). What we can draw into Iraq is the whole middle and low tier structure of Al Queda, if not some of the top structure. They can very well see this is their big opportunity to engage us. While it does take our resources, it also taxes theirs. And we can win the resource part of the war fairly easily. And you're points really don't address my contention, which is not that the Iraqi intervention was designed to suck Al Queda in. Its that the Iraqi intervention is providing us with a chance to confront Al Queda in relative mass instead of as one and two person teams coming across our borders. Your arguments about resources and polls etc are irrlevant. They are happening anyway as a result of our intervention to remove Saddam.
Oh, I certainly disagree. For one thing, we are the ones operating in a manner for which our forces are ill-suited. AQ's roots go back to Afghanistan, and this is exactly what they were doing there. US military policy is fairly conventional; use technological advantages to bring the maximum firepower to bear on specific targets, overwhelm them, and move on with a rapidity which confounds the enemy. Works wonderfully well against fixed targets, and allows for a minimal use of personel, relatively speaking. However, in the present circumstances, the initiative is with the resistance fighters/terrorists. Our forces are stretched thin, are on roving patrols, and only act on initiative when getting lucky spotting targets, or when given intel, which has proven to be rarely reliable. As such they are doing the military equivalent of playing zone defense when they are designed for accute, mobile offense. If they want to have any effect and control,as they were trying to do early on, they must expose themselves. If they prioritize not exposing themselves, as they have been doing lately, they lose control. And what we have done by exposing ourselves is made it possible for A) the enemy to operate in friendly ( not home, but not hostile, and with many pockets of support) territory, whereas before if they wanted to strike at us they had to account for being in enemy terrain, which greatly increases the logistics and time needed to prepare any operation, and decreases it's odds of success, and B) To pull of operations with exit strategies, something they had not been able to do much prior to Iraq. Every previous attack has had some elemement of personel sacrifice on AQ's part, whereas many of the attacks on US troops in Iraq have been accomplished with no loss of AQ manpower. From a strategic/tactical point of view, Iraq is going exactly as Al Queda would have wanted. It's even better than Afghanistan for them because of the presence of large urban areas which concentrate enemy troops, and allow for easier exits than being exposed in the fairly barren rural terrain. As far as whether this is a war of attrition, I would also strongly disagree. Againt the greatest parallel is Afghanistan, and in that confilct the terrorist/partisan/resistance numbers, though having suffered some incredible losses at the hands of the USSR, had a higher manpower turnout at the end of the war than at the beginning. WIth this kind of war, especially given the nature of Jihadish psychology, the longer it goes on the greater the trickle of manpower into the conflict becomes, and the more 'popular' it becomes within Islamic populations. We, on the other hand, require certain steps to increase personel, and each one of those steps makes the war less popular at home. Those claiming that this is an opportunity, that this is a concentration of AQ forces which we couldn't have pulled off any other way are overlooking some simple military principles; They have the initiative, they don't require the numbers for accute attacks that we do for zones of defense in rotational depth, we are the ones exposed, and that operations in other areas, such as 9-11, require less gross numbers than time and planning. IOW, they are probably still ongoing while other wings of AQ are being bloated and meeting wth PR success because of Iraq. Lastly, the assumption that the actions we call terrorist bombings will make the enemy less popular isn;t borne out by history. For one thing, while I have been calling the enemy AQ for the purposes of discussion, it is in reality composed of several elements, many of which are local. For another, these kinds of actions tok place in Afghanistan, in Vietnam, in Spin during the Penninsular War, etc. Rather than drive up sympathy for the foreign superpower, what they have always done previously was to clearly polarize those who are for local powers vs. those who supprt the foreign power. It's hard to understand the effect this has, but history has shown that, over time, the foreign power is seen as the cause...and those who support them are more and more painted as opportunists, sympathizers, and traitors. It's what happened is all the exampels I gave, then some. Remember...in the Penninsulr War, the people of France saw themselves as the good guys. Same for the USSR in Afghanistan, and the US in Vietnam. So the fact that we think we're the enemy and the 'terrorists' are the problem in Iraq does not at all mean that tha's how it's viewed over there, bebneath the surface.
I don't think there is a limitless supply of either Al Queda members, nor of suicide bombers. And straight attrition of their ranks means they have to draw in more people to replace them. Those replacements are necessarily worse trained and less likely to be totally committed in the radical foaming at the mouth sword of god mentality. Remember, even the 9/11 guys weren't ALL committed to being suicide cases. I think you have to look at net gains and losses. We've killed maybe a couple of hundred AQ members in Iraq. Did our invasion of Iraq build more hatred and recruiting potential for AQ than that? I'd say yes. Muslim world opinion of us was already negative, but it shot far more negative after Iraq. If that gives them more than a few hundred new potential recruits, we lose on that front. As far as the training and such, I agree - but they don't really need heavy training. The foot soldiers just throw bombs or snipe rifles. The core AQ members who do the real damage - like the bombers from 9/11 - aren't going to be footsoldiering around in Iraq. Certainly killing the leadership is desirable. But that is not the only way to reduce terrorism (see bombing Libya). Bombing Libya worked specifically because we targetted leadership (and killed one of Qadafi's sons I think). And the search for the leadership doesn't mean you don't try to get rid of the lower echelons of the terrorist structure. And if we can find their leadership we won't be dropping 150,000 troops on their heads (ie its not the same resources for one as the other). I agree with the first part of that - killing AQ members certainly doesn't hurt. However, I don't think it does much in the long-term fight. We're going to win this war by killing the head, not the body. We won't be dropping 150,000 troops anywhere, but having them available is a huge asset. Right now, they are dragging resources (intelligence, satellites, manpower, leadership, etc) away from potential other users. What we can draw into Iraq is the whole middle and low tier structure of Al Queda, if not some of the top structure. They can very well see this is their big opportunity to engage us. But they don't want to engage us - well, maybe some of the lower level guys do, but the core is smarter than that. They know they aren't going to win a conventional war against us - that's why they use terror/guerilla tactics. We know by now they are very good tacticians - they aren't going to be drawn into something and kill themselves. Its that the Iraqi intervention is providing us with a chance to confront Al Queda in relative mass instead of as one and two person teams coming across our borders. I just don't think this is happening. Sure there are a lot of low-level people there. And yeah, we can confront them there. But those aren't the people who would be coming in 1 or 2 man teams across the borders. The guys in Iraq are going to be the low-level, lesser operatives for the most part. Maybe a major leader or two to coordinate it. The ones that do the 9/11s are the ones that are truly brainwashed and have a lifetime of commitment to the cause, have been professionally trained, etc. Whole different class of people, in my opinion. It's like the difference between a draftee and a navy SEAL.
Shocking. In Afganistan Al Queda/mujahadeen were not concentrated in the major urban areas, but in the rural areas. US forces are at their maximum advantage in open terrain, no doubt, but that doesn't mean they are at maximum disadvantage in urban environments vis a vis the relative strengths and weaknesses of Al Queda. From a strategic/tactical point of view, Iraq is going exactly as Al Queda would have wanted. It's even better than Afghanistan for them because of the presence of large urban areas which concentrate enemy troops, and allow for easier exits than being exposed in the fairly barren rural terrain. Terrible example. Afghanistan is substantially different that Iraq. There is not a unified populace joining Al Queda. The % of support is MUCH less for AQ in Iraq than in Afghanistan. The USSR invaded to annex Afghanistan, while we are not annexing Iraq. The popluation in Iraq is much more secular than in Afghanistan, as you and others point out. There isn't any reason this secular society will become MORE radical through Al Queda violence. Not sure why any of this means we don't have an opportunity to engage Al Queda en masse (comparatively). These 'simple principles' us dumb folk forgot about just mean that there will be a price, not that there won't be success. Pure speculation on your part. Being an organization with no safe harbor, with limited resources, its more likely that this effort is draining their resources from other expeditions. It is simply fact that they are expending a large amount of resources in Iraq. That, in itself, is a good thing. More supposition on your part, and it cuts your contention in other threads that they are the least likely populace to radicalize because of their secular history. Except in this case it is not the host populace doing the fighting with the foreign superpower. It is a non-host group (Al Queda) fighting with a foreign superpower. Very much UNLIKE Vietnam. Worst case they want both groups out, which is fine by me. Don't know too much about Spin, but maybe that was a Freudian slip up . The examples of Afghanistan and Vietnam are not comparable. Al Queda has neither safe havens (Cambodia, N Vietnam) from which to operate from, nor a common religious zeal (ala Afghanistan) to unite their cause with the people. Even if the population gets more radical in its insistence we get out, the most popular option for Iraqis is UN intervention, not Osama taking Saddam's place. In Vietnam, for example, most wanted us out, and to let the N Vietnamese take over. Not many people in Iraq want us out and Al Queda running things. I've got this game I play with my dog called 'who's got who.' When I'm not looking she'll come and bite down on my fingers. I'll rap the rest of my hand around her nose and we start tugging each other around. While you contend this is a dream scenario for Al Queda, I wonder who's got who. I think they've got the tiger by the tail.
Your point begs the question. We are already in Iraq. I'm not saying let's go back in time and decide whether we should invade Iraq to trap Al Queda or not. I'm saying we are in Iraq, the recruiting potential is there. Now, is this an opportunity for us to chop down Al Queda-ese? Yes, I believe it is. And its the only one our military can be used for. Al Queda spent years training people. All those people are not sitting by planning 9/11 style attacks while 6 month recruits are operating in Iraq. This is clearly a good opportunity (as MacBeth says) for Al Queda. It is worth the risk to them sending enough trained people to get the job done, and the flip side of that is they are out there operating in a known area, as opposed to what we normally face which is a stealthy enemy unwilling to engage in combat with our military. His daughter. But we didn't kill him and that's the point. We took an action that reduced terrorism, even though it didn't eliminate the leadership. Like? That's my point. This is a battlefield, not one where we can maximize our advantages, that is true, but one nonetheless. This is a place where our troops can square up with Al Queda. Sounds like a good use of them and it doesn't draw away from our efforts to find and eliminate the leadership. Guerillas get killed. Look at Vietnam. Lots and lots of them. Draftees without leadership get chewed up. These guys have a plan and you have to have leaders to execute. Not saying Osama is in Iraq, but there are definitely AQ leaders running the show, risking their lives there. Each leader we eliminate is one less AQ leader. There are only so many SEALS, to use you example. AQ can't just train a bunch more in their Afghani training camps over a few years like they could before 9/11.
APologies. I actually thught you had posted this thread because you wanted discussion/debate. Next time please point out that only those who agree are welcome. You think your position on this is surprising? I'lll agre that almost everyone feels, as you do, that Iraq is a big plus for us, but there are still a few of us who disagree. Clearly being in such a minority would indicate that we are the ones being knee jerk on this.... Sure it does. Lack of maximum advantage plus ideal circumstances for resistance fighting. They are comrpised partly of native poplations, or those who are easily seen as natives, hence they have much greater cover in an urban populace, where it isn't just a matter of isloating huma targets, but ascertaining which targets are the enemy. On the other hand, there is little trouble in identifying/targetting our troops as targets, and there are literally thousands of secondary soft targets which we simply don't have. Not sure what your point of quoting my post here in response to another of my posts was. Doesn't seem to indicate an inconsistency, but then I've been up for about 1/2 hour, so maybe I'm missing something. I don't think you know much about the history of the USSR invasion of Afghanistan. Initially they came in as A)supposed liberators and B) claiming to counter terrorist type actions. They were actually somewhat popular, at first. They always claimed that they weren't there to annex the land...now it seems obvious to us, from the outside looking in, that that was all just rhetoric. Clearly every one in Iraq believes what we're saying, though. We wear the white hats, the Soviets wore the black, and everyone sees it that way. Because they're not en masse. Why would they be? They have no intention of mounting conventional assaults. We are providing the perfect venue and plenty of targets for the kind of operations which are their specialty. Additioanlly, their operations have, it is admitted by US command, increased in sophistication and effect with no corresponding increase in our ability to target them. Why do you think that is? Aside from the possibility that the po;uation in general will begin to look at these actions as wrong, and turn against them/support us...IOW, on the chance that things in Iraq revert to how the world was looking at things pre-Iraq...this can only get better for them as them and worse for us. No safe harbour? Are you joking? And besides, you are overlooking the simple ( and admitted by US command) fact that a great and increasing number of combatents are made up from locals, and that anti-US sentiment is rising, not falling. WAS more secular. We have made it the eye of the storm, the battleground for the Jihad, and everything...everything...shows that the power of the clerics has risen since we invaded. Again, overlooking the local contingency. And in Vietnam it also wasn't originally mostly locals...it was NV, Cambodians, Loations, etc. IOW, people from surrounding nations. Like Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, etc...We aren't facing a standing army...but then in Nam we weren't facing an organizatin like AQ, nor a religious Jihad...and that standing army provided hard targets, which we struck because we couldnt hit the intangibles. In Iraq it's pretty much all highly motivated, highly organized intanglibles. I hope you're joking. You apparently disagree with the US intelligence reports about the constant influx of hostile ppersonel from surrounding countries, or that that's where they have a lot of logistical support? It is exactly like Afghanistan. And you donlt think there's a common religious zeal? They've called a jihad, no? Same deal...and Afghanistan didnlt get really hot until after the USSR had been there over 2 years. Again, you are reducing it all to AQ. They are the strategic backbone, but there are also huge contingents of former Saddam supporters, and an increasingly militant local resistance. Didn't you read the US General's statements admitting this? And you call my posts speculation. DO you have anything but supposition to support this? Has their effectivness decreased? Have our counter attacks been more successfull? Are we becoming more or less liked in Iraq? What possible basis do you have to support this. It's an interesting theory, and can't be written off, but I see nothing to support it ias the best interpretation of circumstances.
This is probably the biggest flaw in your case. The military and intelligence resources we are devoting to Iraq are definitely taking away from our efforts to find and eliminate the Al Qaeda leadership. For instance, Special Forces searching for Bin Laden were pulled out of Afghanistan and sent to Iraq.
You're not knee jerking. Just being a jerk. No, it doesn't. Although urban environments are not maximum for US forces, its not for Al Queda either. Maximum advantage for Al Queda lies in terror-centric action (aka USS Cole or 9/11), not battlefield action. Urban environments aren't the best for the US, but they can still now engage Al Queda, in whatever numbers, in a specific locale. Something Al Queda's maximum environment does not allow. The equation is 'place where we know Al Queda has concentrated resources' vs 'not.' Calm down. I just closed that part of your quote by accident. Pretty much not true. After the invasion the Karmal regime had control of less than 20% of the country and an overwhelming majority of Afghanis opposed the Soviets and the regime. The population was, in fact, vehemently opposed to the Marxist regime BEFORE the invasion by the Soviets. You can make your backhanded analogies between the USSR and US if you want, but only time will tell whether we annex Iraq or not. I think you're just being silly, but whatever. Urban warfare is not Al Queda's specialty. And I said they were en masse comparatively meaning exactly that. Compared to how they usually operate they are en masse in Iraq, and hence available to be eliminated. Because they are refining their activity, probably. That doesn't mean they aren't taking hits back, nor that each casualty they take is a large resource hit than each one we take. Well, it is a possibility that Iraqis will be more cooperative in finding/eliminating these guys as Al Queda kills more Iraqi civilians. That doesn't seem unreasonable. Even if Afghanistan there was a substantial local current against 'Islamic fighters' coming from other areas during the US intervention. There is recognition that Al Queda's goals are not the same as Iraqi goals (as I pointed out they want the UN in, and the US out; not Al Queda in, the US out). Yes, their power certainly increased when the dictator was removed, lol. That was easy to predict without a crystal ball. That doesn't mean a population that was mostly secular are now all crazy Jihad'ers. The average Iraqi just wants the violence to stop and the US to be gone so they can get on with it. There is a big gap between those two things. Not overlooking the local contingency but its nowhere near Vietnam, and for you to say so is silly. Again these situations are nothing alike. Ho's movement encompassed both what later became known as North and South Vietnam. His people were Vietnamese. Much different than Al Queda and Iraqis. In any event, although not in an environment where our military strengths were maximized, we put quite a hurting on the highly motivated and highly organized intangibles in Vietnam. They are the backbone and they are in a place where they can be found and killed. That's a good thing.
Well, they may very well be engaging more Al Queda in Iraq than in Afghanistan. Intelligence we get from AQ members in Iraq could lead to more effectively isolating the whereabouts of AQ elsewhere. Definitely lots of unanswerable possibilities though.
Ahhh...it's been so long since we've had one of our nice chats, I'd forgotten how you debate. Nice to see nothing's changed, sort of nostalgic, really. Class and substance, as usual. I don't see how this isn't obvious; AQ chooses the points of conflict. AQ chooses the times of conflict. AQ has the ability to blend into the background up to moment of attack, and retreat into it afterwards. AQ's attack methods (accute bombings, soft targets, hit and run ambushes, etc.) are more suited to urban envirenments than any other. Our tactis are least suited to such an environment. 2 + 2= 4... Again, innaccurate. Take a look at various works on the early days if the USSR invasion. Look at what the USSR was saying. Look at the similarities. Afghanistanian officials are already saying that if the US stay there exceeds 2 years, similar developments will begin to occur along similar lines as with the USSR. ANd I never said we're annexing Iraq, although the USSR never did annex Afghanistan either. I am saying that our statements are no different than the USSR's were, and likely to be as well received, over time. Have you seen the polls as to what most Iraqis believe US intent in Iraq is? That's not to say their percpetion is accurate, but it's all that matters to this discussion. I ask again, what do you have to support this other than theory?
From what I have read, the majority of the insurgents we're fighting are local Iraqis, not Al Queda. That there are members of Al Queda who have come to fight us is, in my opinion, without question. But I think that the idea we will defeat them there, or give them a serious blow, is mistaken. We are killing Iraqis. They are the vast majority. And the methods they are using, the roadside bomb set off by cell phones or a simple doorbell, are almost impossible to irradicate. Not unless we're willing to take these casualties for several years and maintain this kind of force structure. I beginning to seriously doubt that the American people will put up with this situation indefintely. At some point, they are going to want someone to "declare victory", as Nixon did in Veitnam, and bring our troops home. I'm very concerned about it. We would lose a immense amount of credibility around the world. Which is yet another eason why we shouldn't have done it in the first place. What a mess. Perhaps the military will develop new stategies to deal with this situation, but it looks grim. Very grim, long term.
Macbeth, your contention that Iraq is going exactly as al queda would want is contradicted by the Zarqawi Letter. assuming it's genuine, it paint a compelling picture of american success. I'm sure you've seen it, but for the record, here's the whole thing: -- TEXT FROM ABU MUS’AB AL-ZARQAWI LETTER 1. THE FOREIGN MUJAHIDIN: THEIR NUMBERS CONTINUE TO BE SMALL, COMPARED TO THE LARGE NATURE OF THE EXPECTED BATTLE. WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE ENOUGH GOOD GROUPS AND JIHAD IS CONTINUING, DESPITE THE NEGATIVE RUMORS. WHAT IS PREVENTING US FROM MAKING A GENERAL CALL TO ARMS IS THE FACT THAT THE COUNTRY OF IRAQ HAS NO MOUNTAINS IN WHICH TO SEEK REFUGE, OR FOREST IN WHICH TO HIDE. OUR PRESENCE IS APPARENT AND OUR MOVEMENT IS OUT IN THE OPEN. EYES ARE EVERYWHERE. THE ENEMY IS BEFORE US AND THE SEA IS BEHIND US. MANY IRAQIS WOULD HONOR YOU AS A GUEST AND GIVE YOU REFUGE, FOR YOU ARE A MUSLIM BROTHER; HOWEVER, THEY WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO MAKE THEIR HOMES A BASE FOR OPERATIONS OR A SAFE HOUSE. PEOPLE WHO WILL ALLOW YOU TO DO SUCH THINGS ARE VERY RARE, RARER THAN RED SULFUR. THEREFORE, IT HAS BEEN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO LODGE AND KEEP SAFE A NUMBER OF BROTHERS, AND ALSO TRAIN NEW RECRUITS. PRAISED BE TO ALLAH, HOWEVER, WITH RELENTLESS EFFORT AND SEARCHING WE HAVE ACQUIRED SOME PLACES AND THEIR NUMBERS ARE INCREASING, TO BECOME BASE POINTS FOR THE BROTHERS WHO WILL SPARK WAR AND BRING THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY INTO A REAL BATTLE WITH GOD'S WILL. 2. THE PRESENT AND FUTURE: THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT AMERICAN LOSSES WERE SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE THEY ARE SPREAD THIN AMONGST THE PEOPLE AND BECAUSE IT IS EASY TO GET WEAPONS. THIS IS A FACT THAT MAKES THEM EASY TARGETS, ATTRACTIVE FOR THE BELIEVERS. AMERICA, HOWEVER, HAS NO INTENTION OF LEAVING, NO MATTER HOW MANY WOUNDED NOR HOW BLOODY IT BECOMES. IT IS LOOKING TO A NEAR FUTURE, WHEN IT WILL REMAIN SAFE IN ITS BASES, WHILE HANDING OVER CONTROL OF IRAQ TO A b*stard GOVERNMENT WITH AN ARMY AND POLICE FORCE THAT WILL BRING BACK THE TIME OF ((SADDAM)) HUSAYN AND HIS COHORTS. (HEADQUARTERS COMMENT: IT IS NOT CLEAR TO WHOM "IT" IS REFERRING, BUT IT APPEARS TO MEAN THE UNITED STATES.) THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT OUR FIELD OF MOVEMENT IS SHRINKING AND THE GRIP AROUND THE THROAT OF THE MUJAHIDIN HAS BEGUN TO TIGHTEN. WITH THE SPREAD OF THE ARMY AND POLICE, OUR FUTURE IS BECOMING FRIGHTENING. 3. SO WHERE ARE WE? DESPITE FEW SUPPORTERS, LACK OF FRIENDS, AND TOUGH TIMES, GOD HAS BLESSED US WITH VICTORIES AGAINST THE ENEMY. WE WERE INVOLVED IN ALL THE MARTYRDOM OPERATIONS--IN TERMS OF OVERSEEING, PREPARING, AND PLANNING--THAT TOOK PLACE IN THIS COUNTRY EXCEPT FOR THE OPERATIONS THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE NORTH. PRAISED BE TO ALLAH, I HAVE COMPLETED 25 OF THESE OPERATIONS, SOME OF THEM AGAINST THE SHI'A AND THEIR LEADERS, THE AMERICANS AND THEIR MILITARY, THE POLICE, THE MILITARY, AND THE COALITION FORCES. THERE WILL BE MORE IN THE FUTURE, GOD WILLING. WE DID NOT WANT TO PUBLICLY CLAIM THESE OPERATIONS UNTIL WE BECOME MORE POWERFUL AND WERE READY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES. WE NEED TO SHOW UP STRONG AND AVOID GETTING HURT, NOW THAT WE HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES AND TAKEN IMPORTANT STEPS FORWARD. AS WE GET CLOSER TO THE DECISIVE MOMENT, WE FEEL THAT OUR ENTITY IS SPREADING WITHIN THE SECURITY VOID EXISTING IN IRAQ, SOMETHING THAT WILL ALLOW US TO SECURE BASES ON THE GROUND, THESE BASES THAT WILL BE THE JUMP START OF A SERIOUS REVIVAL, GOD WILLING. 4. PLAN OF ACTION: AFTER MUCH INQUIRY AND DISCUSSION, WE HAVE NARROWED OUR ENEMY TO FOUR GROUPS: A. AMERICANS AS YOU KNOW, THESE ARE THE BIGGEST COWARDS THAT GOD HAS CREATED AND THE EASIEST TARGET. AND WE ASK GOD TO ALLOW US TO KILL, AND DETAIN THEM, SO THAT WE CAN EXCHANGE THEM WITH OUR ARRESTED SHAYKHS AND BROTHERS. B. KURDS THESE ARE A PAIN AND A THORN, AND IT IS NOT TIME YET TO DEAL WITH THEM. THEY ARE LAST ON OUR LIST, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE TRYING TO GET TO SOME OF THEIR LEADERS. GOD WILLING. C. THE IRAQI TROOPS, POLICE, AND AGENTS THESE ARE THE EYES, EARS, AND HAND OF THE OCCUPIER. WITH GOD'S PERMISSION, WE ARE DETERMINED TO TARGET THEM WITH FORCE IN THE NEAR FUTURE, BEFORE THEIR POWER STRENGTHENS. D. THE SHI'A IN OUR OPINION, THESE ARE THE KEY TO CHANGE. TARGETING AND STRIKING THEIR RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL, AND MILITARY SYMBOLS, WILL MAKE THEM SHOW THEIR RAGE AGAINST THE SUNNIS AND BEAR THEIR INNER VENGEANCE. IF WE SUCCEED IN DRAGGING THEM INTO A SECTARIAN WAR, THIS WILL AWAKEN THE SLEEPY SUNNIS WHO ARE FEARFUL OF DESTRUCTION AND DEATH AT THE HANDS OF THESE SABEANS, I.E., THE SHI'A. DESPITE THEIR WEAKNESS, THE SUNNIS ARE STRONG-WILLED AND HONEST AND DIFFERENT FROM THE COWARD AND DECEITFUL SHI'A, WHO ONLY ATTACK THE WEAK. MOST OF THE SUNNIS ARE AWARE OF THE DANGER OF THESE PEOPLE AND THEY FEAR THEM. IF IT WERE NOT FOR THOSE DISAPPOINTING SHAYKHS, SUFIS, AND MUSLIM BROTHERS, SUNNIS WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT ATTITUDE. 5. WAY OF ACTION AS WE HAVE MENTIONED TO YOU, OUR SITUATION DEMANDS THAT WE TREAT THE ISSUE WITH COURAGE AND CLARITY. SO THE SOLUTION, AND GOD ONLY KNOWS, IS THAT WE NEED TO BRING THE SHI'A INTO THE BATTLE BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO PROLONG THE DURATION OF THE FIGHT BETWEEN THE INFIDELS AND US. WE NEED TO DO THAT BECAUSE: A. THE SHI'A HAVE DECLARED A SUBTLE WAR AGAINST ISLAM. THEY ARE THE CLOSE, DANGEROUS ENEMY OF THE SUNNIS. EVEN IF THE AMERICANS ARE ALSO AN ARCHENEMY, THE SHI'A ARE A GREATER DANGER AND THEIR HARM MORE DESTRUCTIVE TO THE NATION THAN THAT OF THE AMERICANS WHO ARE ANYWAY THE ORIGINAL ENEMY BY CONSENSUS. B. THEY HAVE SUPPORTED THE AMERICANS, HELPED THEM, AND STAND WITH THEM AGAINST THE MUJAHIDIN. THEY WORK AND CONTINUE TO WORK TOWARDS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE MUJAHIDIN. C. FIGHTING THE SHI'A IS THE WAY TO TAKE THE NATION TO BATTLE. THE SHI'A HAVE TAKEN ON THE DRESS OF THE ARMY, POLICE, AND THE IRAQI SECURITY FORCES, AND HAVE RAISED THE BANNER OF PROTECTING THE NATION, AND THE CITIZENS. UNDER THIS BANNER, THEY HAVE BEGUN TO ASSASSINATE THE SUNNIS UNDER THE PRETENSE THAT THEY ARE SABOTEURS, VESTIGES OF THE BA'TH, OR TERRORISTS WHO SPREAD PERVERSION IN THE COUNTRY. THIS IS BEING DONE WITH STRONG MEDIA SUPPORT DIRECTED BY THE GOVERNING COUNCIL AND THE AMERICANS, AND THEY HAVE SUCCEEDED IN SPLITTING THE REGULAR SUNNI FROM THE MUJAHIDIN. FOR EXAMPLE, IN WHAT THEY CALL THE SUNNI TRIANGLE, THE ARMY AND POLICE ARE SPREADING OUT IN THESE REGIONS, PUTTING IN CHARGE SUNNIS FROM THE SAME REGION. THEREFORE, THE PROBLEM IS YOU END UP HAVING AN ARMY AND POLICE CONNECTED BY LINEAGE, BLOOD, AND APPEARANCE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE REGION. THIS REGION IS OUR BASE OF OPERATIONS FROM WHERE WE DEPART AND TO WHERE WE RETURN. WHEN THE AMERICANS WITHDRAW, AND THEY HAVE ALREADY STARTED DOING THAT, THEY GET REPLACED BY THESE AGENTS WHO ARE INTIMATELY LINKED TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS REGION. WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO US, IF WE FIGHT THEM, AND WE HAVE TO FIGHT THEM, IS ONE OF ONLY TWO CHOICES: 1) IF WE FIGHT THEM, THAT WILL BE DIFFICULT BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A SCHISM BETWEEN US AND THE PEOPLE OF THE REGION. HOW CAN WE KILL THEIR COUSINS AND SONS AND UNDER WHAT PRETEXT, AFTER THE AMERICANS START WITHDRAWING? THE AMERICANS WILL CONTINUE TO CONTROL FROM THEIR BASES, BUT THE SONS OF THIS LAND WILL BE THE AUTHORITY. THIS IS THE DEMOCRACY, WE WILL HAVE NO PRETEXT. 2) WE CAN PACK UP AND LEAVE AND LOOK FOR ANOTHER LAND, JUST LIKE IT HAS HAPPENED IN SO MANY LANDS OF JIHAD. OUR ENEMY IS GROWING STRONGER DAY AFTER DAY, AND ITS INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION INCREASES. BY GOD, THIS IS SUFFOCATION! WE WILL BE ON THE ROADS AGAIN. PEOPLE FOLLOW THEIR LEADERS, THEIR HEARTS MAY BE WITH YOU, BUT THEIR SWORDS ARE WITH THEIR KINGS. SO I SAY AGAIN, THE ONLY SOLUTION IS TO STRIKE THE RELIGIOUS, MILITARY, AND OTHER CADRES OF THE SHI'A SO THAT THEY REVOLT AGAINST THE SUNNIS. SOME PEOPLE WILL SAY, THAT THIS WILL BE A RECKLESS AND IRRESPONSIBLE ACTION THAT WILL BRING THE ISLAMIC NATION TO A BATTLE FOR WHICH THE ISLAMIC NATION IS UNPREPARED. SOULS WILL PERISH AND BLOOD WILL BE SPILLED. THIS IS, HOWEVER, EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT, AS THERE IS NOTHING TO WIN OR LOSE IN OUR SITUATION. THE SHI'A DESTROYED THE BALANCE, AND THE RELIGION OF GOD IS WORTH MORE THAN LIVES. UNTIL THE MAJORITY STANDS UP FOR THE TRUTH, WE HAVE TO MAKE SACRIFICES FOR THIS RELIGION, AND BLOOD HAS TO BE SPILLED. FOR THOSE WHO ARE GOOD, WE WILL SPEED UP THEIR TRIP TO PARADISE, AND THE OTHERS, WE WILL GET RID OF THEM. BY GOD, THE RELIGION OF GOD IS MORE PRECIOUS THAN ANYTHING ELSE. WE HAVE MANY ROUNDS, ATTACKS, AND BLACK NIGHTS WITH THE SHI'A, AND WE CANNOT DELAY THIS. THEIR MENACE IS LOOMING AND THIS IS A FACT THAT WE SHOULD NOT FEAR, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MOST COWARDLY PEOPLE GOD HAS CREATED. KILLING THEIR LEADERS WILL WEAKEN THEM AND WITH THE DEATH OF THE HEAD, THE WHOLE GROUP DIES. THEY ARE NOT LIKE THE SUNNIS. IF YOU KNEW THE FEAR IN THE SOULS OF THE SUNNIS AND THEIR PEOPLE, YOU WOULD WEEP IN SADNESS. HOW MANY OF THE MOSQUES HAVE THEY HAVE TURNED IN TO SHI'A MOSQUES ("HUSAYNIYAS")? HOW MANY HOUSES THEY HAVE DESTROYED WITH THEIR OWNERS INSIDE? HOW MANY BROTHERS HAVE THEY KILLED? HOW MANY SISTERS HAVE BEEN RAPED AT THE HANDS OF THOSE VILE INFIDELS? IF WE ARE ABLE TO DEAL THEM BLOW AFTER PAINFUL BLOW SO THAT THEY ENGAGE IN A BATTLE, WE WILL BE ABLE TO RESHUFFLE THE CARDS SO THERE WILL REMAIN NO VALUE OR INFLUENCE FOR THE RULING COUNCIL, OR EVEN FOR THE AMERICANS WHO WILL ENTER INTO A SECOND BATTLE WITH THE SHI'A. THIS IS WHAT WE WANT. THEN, THE SUNNI WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO SUPPORT US IN MANY OF THE SUNNI REGIONS. WHEN THE MUJAHIDIN WOULD HAVE SECURED A LAND THEY CAN USE AS A BASE TO HIT THE SHI'A INSIDE THEIR OWN LANDS, WITH A DIRECTED MEDIA AND A STRATEGIC ACTION, THERE WILL BE A CONTINUATION BETWEEN THE MUJAHIDIN INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF IRAQ. WE ARE RACING AGAINST TIME, IN ORDER TO CREATE SQUADS OF MUJAHIDIN WHO SEEK REFUGE IN SECURE PLACES, SPY ON NEIGHBORHOODS, AND WORK ON HUNTING DOWN THE ENEMIES. THE ENEMIES ARE THE AMERICANS, POLICE, AND ARMY. WE HAVE BEEN TRAINING THESE PEOPLE AND AUGMENTING THEIR NUMBERS. AS FAR AS THE SHI'A, WE WILL UNDERTAKE SUICIDE OPERATIONS AND USE CAR BOMBS TO HARM THEM. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON MONITORING THE AREA AND CHOOSING THE RIGHT PEOPLE, LOOKING FOR THOSE WHO ARE ON THE STRAIGHT PATH, SO WE CAN COOPERATE WITH THEM. WE HOPE THAT WE HAVE MADE PROGRESS, AND PERHAPS WE WILL SOON DECIDE TO GO PUBLIC--EVEN IF GRADUALLY--TO DISPLAY OURSELVES IN FULL VIEW. WE HAVE BEEN HIDING FOR A LONG TIME, AND NOW WE ARE SERIOUSLY WORKING ON PREPARING A MEDIA OUTLET TO REVEAL THE TRUTH, ENFLAME ZEAL, AND BECOME AN OUTLET FOR JIHAD IN WHICH THE SWORD AND THE PEN CAN TURN INTO ONE. ALONG WITH THIS, WE STRIVE TO ILLUMINATE THE HINDERING ERRORS OF ISLAMIC LAW AND THE CLARIFICATIONS OF ISLAMIC LEGAL PRECEPTS BY WAY OF TAPES, LESSONS, AND COURSES WHICH PEOPLE WILL COME TO UNDERSTAND. THE SUGGESTED TIME FOR EXECUTION: WE ARE HOPING THAT WE WILL SOON START WORKING ON CREATING SQUADS AND BRIGADES OF INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE. WE HAVE TO GET TO THE ZERO-HOUR IN ORDER TO OPENLY BEGIN CONTROLLING THE LAND BY NIGHT AND AFTER THAT BY DAY, GOD WILLING. THE ZERO-HOUR NEEDS TO BE AT LEAST FOUR MONTHS BEFORE THE NEW GOVERNMENT GETS IN PLACE. AS WE SEE WE ARE RACING TIME, AND IF WE SUCCEED, WHICH WE ARE HOPING, WE WILL TURN THE TABLES ON THEM AND THWART THEIR PLAN. IF, GOD FORBID, THE GOVERNMENT IS SUCCESSFUL AND TAKES CONTROL OF THE COUNTRY, WE JUST HAVE TO PACK UP AND GO SOMEWHERE ELSE AGAIN, WHERE WE CAN RAISE THE FLAG AGAIN OR DIE, IF GOD CHOOSES US. 6. WHAT ABOUT YOU? YOU, NOBLE BROTHERS, LEADERS OF JIHAD, WE DO NOT CONSIDER OURSELVES THOSE WHO WOULD COMPETE AGAINST YOU, NOR WOULD WE EVER AIM TO ACHIEVE GLORY FOR OURSELVES LIKE YOU DID. THE ONLY THING WE WANT IS TO BE THE HEAD OF THE SPEAR, ASSISTING AND PROVIDING A BRIDGE OVER WHICH THE MUSLIM NATION CAN CROSS TO PROMISED VICTORY AND A BETTER TOMORROW. AS WE HAVE EXPLAINED, THIS IS OUR BELIEF. SO IF YOU AGREE WITH IT AND ARE CONVINCED OF THE IDEA OF KILLING THE PERVERSE SECTS, WE STAND READY AS AN ARMY FOR YOU, TO WORK UNDER YOUR GUIDANCE AND YIELD TO YOUR COMMAND. INDEED, WE OPENLY AND PUBLICLY SWEAR ALLEGIANCE TO YOU BY USING THE MEDIA, IN ORDER TO EXASPERATE THE INFIDELS AND CONFIRM TO THE ADHERENTS OF FAITH THAT ONE DAY, THE BELIEVERS WILL REVEL IN GOD'S VICTORY. IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE, WE WILL REMAIN BROTHERS, AND DISAGREEMENT WILL NOT DESTROY OUR COOPERATION AND UNDERMINE OUR WORKING TOGETHER FOR WHAT IS BEST. WE SUPPORT JIHAD AND WAIT FOR YOUR RESPONSE. MAY GOD KEEP FOR YOU THE KEYS OF GOODNESS AND PRESERVE ISLAM AND HIS PEOPLE. AMEN, AMEN.
Is AQ the biggest threat the US should be concerned with in Iraq? I imagine the various factions, religious rivalries and the Kurds are the biggest concern. Who cares about AQ if Iraq falls into civil war--especially the Kurds?
MacBeth, I really can't decide whether to ignore your dumbass or to get all fired up when you accuse me of doing what you are doing. If you'll look back to the beginning of the thread, its you who wrote: Originally posted by MacBeth APologies. I actually thught you had posted this thread because you wanted discussion/debate. Next time please point out that only those who agree are welcome. You think your position on this is surprising? I'lll agre that almost everyone feels, as you do, that Iraq is a big plus for us, but there are still a few of us who disagree. Clearly being in such a minority would indicate that we are the ones being knee jerk on this.... Now all I said was that it was 'shocking' that you take the position you do. I didn't say you were wrong or stupid or that you hadn't thought out your position. You, however, want to immediately stake your ego on the line and point out how anyone who thinks differently that you is 'not open to debate,' 'knee jerk,' or 'classless.' To put it mildy, go **** yourself. I don't see how this isn't obvious. The US is in a room with no al queda. They therefore can't kill Al Queda. The US is in a room WITH Al Queda, the US can kill Al Queda. 2 + 2 DOES = 4. Uh no, its accurate: "Opposition to the Marxist government emerged almost immediately. This reaction was largely due to the fact that the PDPA brutally imposed a Marxist-style "reform" program during its first 18 months of rule, which ran counter to deeply rooted Islamic traditions....By October 1979, however, relations between Afghanistan and the Soviet Union were tense as Hafizullah Amin refused to take Soviet advice on how to stabilize and consolidate his government. Faced with a deteriorating security situation on Dec. 24, 1979, large numbers of Soviet airborne forces, joining thousands of Soviet troops already on the ground, began to land in Kabul under the pretext of a field exercise. Two days later, these invasion forces killed Hafizullah Amin and installed Babrak Karmal, exiled leader of the Parcham faction, as prime minister. Massive Soviet ground forces invaded from the north on Dec. 27. Following the invasion, the Karmal regime, although backed by an expeditionary force of about 120,000 Soviet troops, was unable to establish authority outside Kabul. As much as 80 percent of the countryside, including parts of Herat and Kandahar eluded effective government control. An overwhelming majority of Afghans opposed the communist regime, either actively or passively. Afghan "mujahidin" (freedom fighters) made it almost impossible for the regime to maintain a system of local government outside major urban centers." Uh, hello? What do you have that supports your theory that Al Queda's specialty is urban warfare? WHERE? C'mon slick, where have they fought a prolonged urban campaign? They haven't. They've blown up a few buildings, which urban warfare does not make. Except that you are assuming all opposition goes in the same direction and for the same goals. Critical mistake. Again you misunderstand causality. Removing a top down totalitarian regime necessarily releases power to other groups. That is not in any way relevant to our discussion. Acutally, as I've shown above the opposition was large and real from the beginning against the marxist regime AND the Soviet invasion. In this case, I've also shown that the populace is not moving toward Al Queda, but toward the UN. Those are diametrically opposed poles of power. Again...you are claiming Ho's insurgency included few Vietnamese? That's factually absurd. Regardless, there is real tension between Al Queda and the everyday Iraqi that makes comparisons to Vietnam silly. Nice rhetorical turn but it does little for your argument. You claim to be 'in the know' because you can point out similarities. When I argue they aren't similar you say 'well maybe not but the Soviets said Vietnam and Afghanistan were similar.' Sounds good but there isn't much substance there. Uh, how about Iraq? Remember that? Get lost in the discussion?
So...let's see. I respond to your intitial post by saying I disagree; you make a point of responding to that particular line with "Shocking." Now...and maybe this is just a dumbass talking, but it appeared to me that the obvious implication was that you thought that my response was not, in fact, shocking, but predictable, knee jerk, what have you. If anyone out there thinks that this wasn't the obvious implication, please let me know, as it seems pretty clear to me. Assuming I'm right, then how do you object to my reaction, not to mention the now 3 personel insults included in your posts? If, in fact, you were relly shocked by the fact that I disagreed, well, by all means, I apologize...but somehow I suspect that that's not the case, and, as usual with you, you dish it out but grw vehement when it's even mildly returned, resort to insults, slicks, and the usual rhetoric...which brings me to... AGAIN...what box? Iraq is a huge country, and AQ is only confined by where they decide to go. They can come in, go out, attack here, leave there, etc.... all decided upon by them, and as they see in their best interests. Not true for us. Do you see the implications? Doesn't take a student of military thinking to see who does and who does not have the initiative. Nor does it take one to see who is and who is not being effective. Put it this way...is AQ's gaol to take over ( which has never, ever been their stated position) or to either get us to leave or to raise opposition to us. And what is currently happening? Are their objectives becoming furthered or lessened as their campaigns have progressed? Simple question. A) Source? B) And where in this quote does it state that opposition was similar to later? It progressed and increased. For example, is it fair to say that we had oppositon from the start in Iraq? Yes or no? But is it increasing? And if, 3 years from now, it's broken down into complete civil war...would that be an increase? Would we have been relatively popular early on? C) All of this avoids the fact that the USSR got in under the same pretexts as we have, and that things are going the same way. We haven't gone as far, but we haven't been there as long. You are quoting what occured after the USSR established a puppet government, and then defended it in force. We havent gotten that far yet. You really don't know that urban centers are havens for their kinds of operations? Or those of the other opponents to the US? Hmmm, well, I could site you several sources, but before I do that, for some light reading, try going back a bit and reading the US commands outline for Operation Freedom Iraq, specifially why they didn't want to get into conflict in urban centers. because...and you'll find this interesting, they admitted that it maximized the capabilities of guerilla style tactics while minimizing the effectiveness of coalition ( heh) forces capabilities. More to the point, this would be like a basketball coach saying that a good interior game relies on good big men...it's pretty basic stuff; Little war is best suited to urban centers. In rural seetings it is best served by dense vegitation, although even there modern sat technology reduces the natural cover of foliage. Same goes for guidance systems for smart bombs, radar guided ISD's, and night warfare equipment, all of which form the basis for our attacks in both GW's. Where does modern technology find it impossible to islotate targets? Only one environment...can you guess, slick? At the same time, where can AQ's best hide from same? Where can they blend in? Where can they get close to targets without standing out? Where can they find hard cover which leads to exit points within short distances from theri targets? In the desert? What Iraq has provided for them is this: Available targets without the need to set up covers, find weaknesees, etc. as they'd have to in the US, etc. Terrain best suited for their operations. A groundswell of support for their cause. And above all, a place where they set the timetable, where they choose the battlegrounds, and where they choose the targets. DO you have ANY IDEA how fundamental that is to military success? Put it another way...we obviously miscalculated on several planes with regards to Iraq. The plane most applicable to the ongoing resistance was public support...We said open arms, we didn't think those arms would be carrying. Forget all the other areas in which we were wrong, concentrate on this. Now, we're locked in, as you say. We miscalculated, and it's too late to change our decision to go in. On the other hand, AQ has nothing of the same kinds of restraints...their only agenda here is one of their choosing, and they are locked into nothing. Yet they keep coming...why, do you suppose? If, in fact, this is good for us, if we've got the tiger by the tail, what is our hold? They are calling all the shots, they could shoot in another direction if they wanted, we could not. So...why? Add to that the fact that their objectives, not ours, are being borne out more and more as this goes on, and again...simple math. Straw man. We are discussing this from our POV. From ours, their objectives are unified; us out. What happens after that is irrelevent to whether or not we've got AQ where we wnt them. If we leave,, even if you assume that they're the tiger, we haven't got them any more. Using your analogy, if they want us out of the room, and we leave, whether after that they pursue differing objectives is irrelevent to whther or not we win in the room, no? And AQ has never, that I've heard of, voiced a desire for political control of Iraq. they just want us out, and an Islamic govt. in. Not themselves. And it looks to be heading that way, no? Good job.
