NYTIMES: Al-Qaeda is kinda getting kicked in Iraq...

careful, you highlight success in the WOT, you'll be accused of being on biggus dickus' payroll...

 

Are you saying the religion is twisted or the people following it?

Would they be doing what they are doing if we didn’t go into Iraq? ...they knew if Iraq was a quick success we were gong to go after them next….it’s not like they didn’t know that alqueida had nothing to do with Iraq…...fact is that neither Iran nor Iraq had anything to do with Al-Queida.

 

this is just patently false. not only does iran have plenty to do w/ al queda, they had plenty to do w/ 9/11, and provided the hijackers transit through the country w/o stamping their passports.

 

That is like saying the U.S. had plenty to do with 9/11 since 3 of the hi-jackers were here illegally and the U.S. did nothing about it.

 

But on to the topic, Al-Qaeda in Iraq has been dealt with pretty effectively. They were never an extreme danger, and quickly lost support even among other Iraqi insurgents. They are only responsible for a very tiny percentage of the violence in Iraq, and that's a good thing.

 

Interesting article, ROXRAN, thanks.

 

actually, the us did plenty, but it was more of a facilitation than an effort at prevention.

for example, the bush administration authorized the visa express program in may 2001, which allowed saudi nationals to get a visa thru their travel agent rather than a pesky consulate or embassy. five of the hijackers used this program to gain entry into the u.s.

 

was that due to the twisted religion or at least the extreme fundamentalist part of it

 

the surge will never work .... ohh, wait.

 

Al Qaeda's been on a slide for awhile that started predating the surge. Al Qaeda wore out there welcome when they started targetting local Sunni leaders that has nothing to do with the surge. While it is a very good thing that Al Qaeda is on the run the problems with Iraq are much greater than Al Qaeda. There is still the problem of Shiite and Sunni tensions, thanks to the PKK problems with the Kurds and even tensions within the Sunnis. Those will exist whether Al Qaeda is there or not.

 

Nice to hear some good news!

I, for one, am sick of harping on Bush for the mistakes he's made. Seeing progress and success in Iraq doesn't mean people will forget that he started this mess.

If the surge is working, and Bush's new strategy offers any measured level of success, more power to him. I hope he's very successful and we're able to get out of there with some semblance of national dignity remaining.

To Bush haters - do you really think at this point more failures by this administration will hurt the GOP or Bush's legacy any more than it already has? He's awful, we know. And on that same token, the surge working and Iraq showing progress isn't going to help him either. And even if he does get widespread acclaim, who cares, at least less people are dying.

We might as well applaud him, like we do a child, when they attempt to clean up the mess that they have made.

 

Hopefully this is good for everyone, and the Iraqis can come to a political reconciliation so we can start a drawdown in troops.

 

Apollo Creed:

I'd really appreciate it if you didn't assume that calls for an end to the war in Iraq are based on an interest in seeing Bush fail. I and many others here have repeatedly asserted that our interest is in ending a failed war and stopping the unnecessary bleeding and maiming and dying, regardless of what the political implications might be.

You will say, but it's working now. And I will say, yes, according to criteria that has little to do with whether or not the situation is winnable militarily.

If the surge is having meaningful success against Al Qaeda in Iraq, GOOD! I am FOR success against Al Qaeda, so I applaud any progress that is made on that front.

BUT:

Al Qaeda accounts for a tiny percentage of the problem there and it accounts for a tiny percentage of the bloodshed and continued bad prospects for peace in that country.

The problem, as many of us have repeatedly articulated, is that the country is comprised of three groups of people that hate each other and want each other dead. Al Qaeda is a side dish. And dealing with Al Qaeda does zero to address the civil war there. And the surge does zero to address the civil war there.

There can be no American military solution to a civil war in Iraq unless we choose one side and start killing people on the other two sides until they give up. We are not willing to do that. And our continued presence in a country where the majority of the population thinks it is okay to shoot at and kill Americans is not helping.

That doesn't have anything to do with Democrats or Republicans or liking or disliking Bush or anything regarding politics at all. It has to do with acknowledging that the real problem in Iraq exists between the Sunni and the Shi'ites and to a lesser degree the Kurds. And then doing whatever is best to address the real problem, rather than focusing entirely on a small band of terrorists that are only there because we are and that only enjoy any measure of acceptance from Iraqis because they want us gone.

Unless we agree to align ourselves with one side of this civil war against the other (and we shouldn't and won't) no amount of troops, guns or bombs will fix this.

 

Well, I don't disagree...but I'm hoping this is a sign of more positive things to come...

Even if we end up just claiming victory when it's not and then leaving, I try to remain optimistic.

 

I appreciate your optimism. I wish I could share it.

The thing is, military success against Al Qaeda literally cannot be a sign of positive things to come with regard to the real problem - the civil war - because the only possible military solution to a civil war is choosing a side in that civil war.

We need a political solution. And the beginning of that political solution needs to be phased redeployment. We have some small power to impact the current violence in Iraq, but only by backing away. As it stands, the American military presence only serves to unify Al Qaeda and native Iraqis against us. By being there, in other words, we increase (not decrease) the violence.

When we redeploy we will take away Al Qaeda's raison d'etre in Iraq and we will take away the only reasoning for Iraqis sympathizing with them. Further, we will force the Iraqi government to aggressively seek reconciliation -- a thing they haven't lifted a finger on as long as we've been there.

Also, there's bad news to go along with the good. Although some statistics might be marginally encouraging, 2007 is the deadliest year of this war so far when it comes to American lives lost.

 

"we" dont need a political solution..."they" do.

The US can only provide a somewhat stable infrastructure for the govt...its up to them to figure out their own politics.

 

They must work it out, but our presence is adding to the instability.

 

our presence has also prevented complete chaos. I have a hard time thinking that things would get more stable if troops immediately left.