al Qaeda Desperation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rebar

Moderator
Mrs. al-Rishawi’s family history reveals just how effective the U.S. military has proven to be in eliminating insurgents. Jordanian intelligence has learned that three of her brothers were killed by coalition forces in Iraq. Her brother, Thamir al-Rashawi, a member al-Zarqawi’s inner circle, was killed in April 2004 in Fallujah, when a missile fired from a U.S. aircraft struck his pick-up truck. Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister Marwan al-Mu’ashir described her brother, Thamir, as “the emir [commander] of the Al-Anbar region [of the Iraqi insurgency] in the Al-Qa’idah of Jihad Organization in the Land of Two Rivers. He was the right hand of Abu-Mus’ab al-Zarqawi.”

Her other two brothers, Ammar and Yassir, died in separate battles with U.S. forces in Ramadi, Iraq, in 2005.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10381

Clearly, the terrorists are in deep trouble, if they have to send senior commanders on suicide missions. And look at the toll on this woman's terrorist family, we're slaughtering the enemy, but you won't get that news from the MSM.
 
The US's true success will not be shown by a body count in this instance - rather by a lack of future body counts...

However - every dead terrorist certainly helps! Shoot straight boys. :cool:
 
Just my honest opinion, Al Qaidah is getting a big helping hand from the rancor our government offcials a putting up. Next war the politicians should leads us into battle to make sure it is done their way.:mad:

25
 
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale
and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled,
or hanged."

-Abraham Lincoln.
 
Don't you know that this is how they've always operated? Check out "See No Evil" by Robert Baer. Everything is organized by families over there. It's folly to the point of delusion to think you can beat a popular insurgency merely with conventional ground forces.

Here's the real state of affairs over there:
The Syrians and Iranians are supporting the Shi'a insurgency across the undefended borders near Mosul and Kirkuk.
The Saudis and Kuwaitis are supporting the Sunni insurgency across the undefended borders near Basra.
American forces are in enclave. We make occasional forays to retake the same territory before abandoning it. Forces in the field have to rely on air drops and helos for resupply because the insurgents have the supply routes interdicted.
Meanwhile, the insurgency that was reportedly in it's "death throes" a year ago is the strongest it has ever been, largely because our policy has been to take whatever action will most effectively alienate us from the Iraqi people.

All of this should sound familiar to the 50 and over crowd here. Reclusive oil baron self-styled cowboy president surrounded by advisors who thought they knew more about war than they really did....
The difference is that losing that war didn't really harm our global strategic position. A couple of ports and airfields for our main adversary but that's it.
Losing this war means creating the most capable and motivated enemy we've
faced since the Soviets. And gutting the credibility of one of the major parties on the subject of national security.
The dialogue in Washington is whether to cut and run or cut and walk. Nobody is advocating taking the steps required to actually win this war.

Sorry to sound so defeatist. It just really irks me to read stories like this in the papers:
Defense official: Rumsfeld given Iraq withdrawal plan
Plan calls for troops to begin pulling out after December elections

Friday, November 18, 2005; Posted: 11:34 p.m. EST (04:34 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official.

Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year....

We need to get serious about this before it's too late. We need a complete overhaul of our strategy. Otherwise once the dust settles we're going to be staring at a nuclear-armed Caliphate with a fanatical population base, deep hatred of the west in general and a vendetta against the United States of America in particular..
 
It's folly to the point of delusion to think you can beat a popular insurgency merely with conventional ground forces.
Perhaps, but we're not just using ground forces. We're giving the Iraqi people a stake in their government with democracy.

the insurgency that was reportedly in it's "death throes" a year ago is the strongest it has ever been
Sending top level commanders on homicide bombing missions is not a sign of strength. It is a very real sign of weakness. As the Iraqi security forces get stronger, the terrorists are getting weaker, the tipping point, as judged by their desperation, seems to be approaching.
 
Perhaps, but we're not just using ground forces. We're giving the Iraqi people a stake in their government with democracy.
No, we are giving the Shi'a Iraqi people control of the country while building animosity towards America. Not at all the same thing.

Sending top level commanders on homicide bombing missions is not a sign of strength. It is a very real sign of weakness. As the Iraqi security forces get stronger, the terrorists are getting weaker, the tipping point, as judged by their desperation, seems to be approaching.
Perhaps I'm not getting the point across clearly: They have always sent 'top level commanders' on bombing missions. This is not new behavior. Furthermore, the current level of Iraqi mobilization is so slight as to be ineffective in the field; certainly not yet making any headway against the insurgents.
By any measure you care to look at (provided you get your info from defense experts instead of politicians) the insurgency in Iraq is getting stronger by the day, not weaker. The only gross strategic error I've seen thus far from them is the wave of attacks in Jordan.
I would advise you to not underestimate your enemy. Support of the local populace is what this war will hinge upon.
 
Before this turns ugly or gets locked down, let me make it clear that I have no wish to flame you. I encourage you to start looking at this matter in the cold light of reality. Look at the analysis from independent sources such as the Navy War College, Strategic Studies Institute, and Global Security Online, not 'Conservative Weekly'.
I guarantee you that if you get your info from kool-aid sites you will get a very inaccurate read of the situation. These people have a vested political interest in misleading you.
 
the insurgency in Iraq is getting stronger by the day, not weaker.
To what effect?

You say they're getting stronger, yet they haven't accomplished anything other than slaughtering innocent civilians. There's no goal or strategy on their side, just mindless killing. They hold no terrain, then have no strongholds, they have no formed military units. They're suffering tremedous casualties, estimates are over fifty thousand so far, yet have accomplished nothing. Nothing except harden the Iraqi resolve to fight them.

And no, it's not normal to send top level people on suicide bombings. You can get anyone to walk into a place and blow themselves up, no one sends a general into combat as an infantryman except in the most dire situations.
 
The major tv networks cnn, msn, cbs, abc,, nbc, are the more biased than anyone can believe. They aren't going to air any program that will put the consevatives in a favorable light no matter what. Its almost comical to watch them just to see how far left they're leaning that day. Its amazes me that people take what they say as gospel. Don't get me started on news print.
 
Ahh...I see you folks disagree with me. Cool... *cracks fingers*...
If you folks are so convinced that we're in control and that the insurgents are losing, what do you suppose that circus up in Washington was about last night?
I'm tellin' ya: Iraq is about to come unhinged and everybody in Washington is in CYA mode because they know it's coming even if you do not.
That the major news networks may or may not be slanted is arguable. I guarantee you that that the IISS and Army SSI are not slanted. They're saying the same thing that I'm saying: the chances of bringing this war to a successful conclusion by the current methods are zero. The chances of bringing this war to a successful conclusion by leaving now are zero.

And I'll tell you to what effect. The Dems want to pull out at the earliest possible date. This is what the majority of Americans want. The Republicans want to pull out before the '06 elections and be fully withdrawn by '08 in such a way that they can blame the Dems and the Iraqis themselves.
IOW nobody in Washington is trying to win this war; they're trying to prepare for failure. And while the terrorists may be reprehensible (or at the very least playing by a different set of rules) they're not stupid. They know it's just a matter of time before we give it up as a bad job.
You guys need to quit looking at this as a left vs. right thing and start looking at it as a war with very real consequenses for failure.
 
I commented several times to family and friends that what is really needed in Iraq isn't a military force. You can't defeat guerilla forces with the military unless you also supress the civilian populace. Which creates resentment against the foreign occupiers. Rebellion is a shoo in under those circumstances.

What is really needed is another "hong kong" located in southern Iraq. An international trade city, run by, held by, and staffed by Iraqis with mega mega dollars being filtered through it would do more to quell the insurgency than any military force could.

As for our troops in Iraq, we need to get them out. They are NOT police and do not have the training, weaponry, or directives to be police. They are military forces. When they are called in people die until someone gives up or the enemy is annihilated. We did that already so it's past time for the troops to come home. They did their job fantastically (YES!). Their current "mission" (hah it's a joke to call it a mission) underuses them, mismanages their resources, and causes public commentary that destroys their morale and effectiveness. They are destroyers, not peacekeepers and should not be used as such. Bring 'em home.
 
If the "insurgency" was being staffed by Iraquis, I'd be more inclined to take this seriously. How is the "rebellion", staffed nearly 100% by "foreign" mujahadeen, and killing the Iraqui population, any different than we're supposedly doing? Now, they have started the suicide bombing of mosques. Ever wonder how our intelligence about these people has suddenly become so much more accurate? Or the number, and quality, of the men volunteering for the Iraqui Police and Army, is increasing weekly? It just MIGHT be because the Iraqui population has never been fundamentalist, unlike the supposed "free-dumb fighters." These imports offer an even worse lifestyle than under a sadistic Saddam. I think that the average Iraqui wants to be left the heck alone, to live in peace, and without a totalitarian form of government.

What idiot, other than a Congressman, could believe that our pulling out of Iraq now would help the Iraqui people? As for our alienating the Iraqui population, I'm absolutely certain that building schools, power plants, water treatment plants, roads, and hospitals is just horrifying to any right thinking Iraqui. Get a grip. I have no idea why people, who never trust the news media on anything else, can believe them about Iraq.

I'm over 50, and I served in Vietnam. This reminds me less of Vietnam, and more of Kosovo at it's earliest stages. We're still there, by the way. Does that mean it's another, colder, Vietnam? Jesus, try not to bullsh@t the people who were there, will you?
 
staffed nearly 100% by "foreign" mujahadeen

Okay, so if I were to tell you that less than 10% of the insurgents were foreign, what then?
http://www.csis.org/press/index.php?option=com_csis_press&task=view&id=1478

and I quote
Nevertheless, these numbers pale beside those for the Iraqis themselves. By all reports,
the insurgency remains largely homegrown. US experts and top level Iraqi officials
estimated in November 2005 that at least 90% of the fighters were Iraqi and the total
might be closer to 94% to 96%.. Coalition sources also indicated that only 3.8% of some
Cordesman: Iraq & Foreign Volunteers 11/18/05 Page 3
13,300 detainees held in the fall of 2005 were foreign, and this percentage was lower than
it had been in the early winter of 2005. Major General Rick Lynch in the Coalition
command in Baghdad stated in October that only 376 of the detainees taken in 2005 were
foreign: 78 Egyptians, 66 Syrians, 41 Sudanese, 32 Saudis, 1 American, and 1 Briton.
These numbers had not changed significantly as of November 1, although the total
number of detainees had risen to 13,900. (Out of this total, 5,569 had already been held
for six months, 3,801 for a year, and 229 for two years. The total include some 752 at
Fort Suse in northeast Iraq, 113 at Camp Cropper and 4,788 at Abu Ghraib in Baghdad,
and 6,780 at Camp Bucca in Southeastern Iraq. There were an additional 1,136 detainees
in various brigade and internment facilities as of November 9, 2005.) ii I
These figures mark a sharp contrast to some allegations that the insurgency was being
driven by large numbers of foreign volunteers, and that a flood of new volunteers came in
2005. As Major General Joseph J. Taluto, the commander of the US Army’s 42nd Infantry
Division, which was based in Tikrit put it, “The foreign fighters attacks tend to be more
spectacular, but the local national, the Saddamists, the Iraqi rejectionists, are much more
problematic.iii
And, of course, the 'Mujahadeen' are Afghan. Download the PDF here
So now what? Are you more inclined to take this seriously?
(edited to remove snark)
 
While the suicide bombers are mostly foreign fighters, they are still being supported both financially, militarily, and physically by the Sunni's and former Baathists. they want their power and reign of terror back.
 
And once again for my buddy REBAR,
Success is defined by whether or not we are successful in establishing a stable benevolent government in Iraq. Just because your enemy isn't manufacturing tanks, forming up in neat lines, and fighting a neat Hollywood set-piece battle *does not* mean that you are winning.
 
Nor does it mean that you're losing. Religious fervor has ruined a great number of otherwise successful revolutions. The numbers quoted were from sources that are taken out of context. The fact that captured insurgents are mostly home-grown may have a relatively simple explanation. They don't want to die.

Going back to your Vietnam example, the VC and NVA routinely took the dead and wounded with them. It wasn't until after the war that we learned of the true number of casualties inflicted upon these forces. Why would the insurgents not do the same. There is also the fact that U.S. forces don't routinely track the origin of dead bodies.

You also skipped over the fact that the Iraqi government has issued repeated warnings to both Syria, and Iran, to stop the influx of such fighters. Heck, if it was less than the hundred you pointed out, who would care?

I do not believe that the Iraqi people, as a whole, are being alienated by the military. If anything, the American military is much more lenient than that of Saddam Hussein. Maybe the fact that I am neither an Iraqi, or a Muslim, has created a blind spot in my logic. BUT, it will take someone who is either, or both, to bring that into play.
 
"They hold no terrain, then have no strongholds, they have no formed military units. They're suffering tremedous casualties, estimates are over fifty thousand so far, yet have accomplished nothing. Nothing except harden the Iraqi resolve to fight them."

The object of their warfare is to cause terror... not to form military units nor gain strongholds. They beleive that by martyring themselves they will be absolved of all sins and gain entrance to paradise. Thier purpose is to make millions of martyrs if necessary. They know that they can not win force on force engagements with the US Forces. Dont underestimate thier intelligence either. They came in our backyard and gave us a pretty bloody nose on 9/11.

"In the internal memo that he wrote on October 16, 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld admitted, “We are having mixed results with Al Qaeda.” Speaking with much greater candor in this private communication than did President Bush before a television audience, Rumsfeld concluded: “Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?”

Nobody knows exactly how many members Al Qeada has. Nobody knows how many muslim terrorists there are worldwide

one in five people in the world are Muslim. only 15% of muslims are of Arab ethnicity. There are over 1 Billion Muslims in the world today. However not all muslims are involved in terrorism.

I would say 50,000 martyrs is pocket change to them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top