al Qaeda Desperation

[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.

Unless they can form military units to fight the US/Iraqi army, then they cannot win. If the Iraqi's can get to the point where they can defend themselves, that would be victory.

And I believe Iraq is only the first step, I think the next steps are to destabilize the Syrian and Iranian regimes, which would turn off the tap of foreign fighters, and other assorted nasty buisness.

 

[Eghad]

Al Qaedas enemy is the entire Western Civilization and any Arab nation that have been allies with the west is thier enemy to include any Arab nation which does not have a secular government. Thier goal is to return the Caliphate to power in the form of a secular Islamic superstate and to subjagate the western world and place its religions back under Dhimmi. They blame the west on the fall of the Caliphate.

We had a superior military to the Vietcong and North Vietnamese, and won force on force battles with them. We left they invaded.

doing anything in Syria and Iran is pretty much on the wish list. we have expended a lot of the capital needed for that in Iraq. Only 15% of Muslims are Arabs, destabilizing Iran and Syria would be like killing two flies with a flyswatter. A lot of support form Al Qaeda comes for Saudi..guess we cant destabilize them since we get a lot of our oil from them and they are our ally..lol

Hopefully the Iraqi people will get pissed of enough to do some good but we are still having to hold thier hands in a lot of places.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

rebar said,

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.

All too often, people in power underestimate the skills and threat of opposition forces. This often results in harm to those doing the underestimation. The British did it with the New World colonists, the French with the Germans, the US with Vietnam.

rebar said,

Unless they can form military units to fight the US/Iraqi army, then they cannot win.

Oh, you mean like what happened in Somalia, right?

 

[GoSlash27]

Eghad,
I'd add to Rumsfeld's memo that we also don't know how much our doctrine is helping the enemy's recruiting efforts. The goal here is to kill and capture terrorists/insurgents faster than they are created.

Rebar,

Unless they can form military units to fight the US/Iraqi army, then they cannot win.

Wow... I recommend that you brush up on your military history.

 

[GoSlash27]

Nor does it mean that you're losing. Religious fervor has ruined a great number of otherwise successful revolutions.

And also helped a great number. As you point out at the end of your post (well reasoned and written BTW), you have to understand how these people think.
We do actually have a very good read on the mood of the populace, and it's not pretty.

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.

Or an even simpler one: They're almost all Iraqi. There's really no reason to assume that the Iraqis have any less of a stomach for martyrdom than any other nationality, is there?

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.

Only the foreign ones? Why would they do that?

There is also the fact that U.S. forces don't routinely track the origin of dead bodies.

Implying that we're killing foreigners almost exclusively even though they're better trained. Doesn't fit.

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?

Remember that what I posted is not my analysis, but that of the folks who's job it is to understand this stuff. Anywho, we want to shut down the influx because these people are better trained and are bringing in weapons and know-how. They are more of a problem than their numbers would suggest. Look at it this way: The number one concern in a war is logistics, right? These 'foreign fighters' are the logistical tail of the insurgents.

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.

A comparison to Saddam is inherently flawed because we're not fighting him. What is important is public sentiment towards us vs. the insurgents.
Did you see the backlash in Jordan when Zarqaui set off his wave of attacks there? That's the key if only we have the wit to use it.
You see, an insurgency's greatest strength and weakness is that it relies on the support of the local populace for survival. Iraqi support for the insurgency is strong but fragile. I know it's hard to grasp the concept for an insurgency that might kill them, but I assure you it's alive and well. It is only our behavior that makes it possible.

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.

I am also neither Iraqi Arab, or Muslim. But we do have a very clear understanding of how these people think. Know thy enemy and all that...

 

[JR47]

Until, and unless, the people doing this analysis are Muslims, and not from the U.S., they are doomed to fail. We look at everything through Western eyes. I remember how the Iraqi military, armed with Soviet T72 tanks and doctrine, were going to wreak havoc on American forces in Gulf War I. The political think tanks overwhelmingly stated that the Iraqi people would resist us tooth-and-nail. They were wrong.

The VC removed the NVA "advisors" bodies early on, as this was supposed to be, as our media was so fond of pointing out, a "popular uprising". Iraq differs in that there is no North Iraq preying on a South Iraq.

My thought of "our" people is the same as in Vietnam. Politicians, and those who's knowledge is gained in the sterile envionment of academia, need to keep their abilities in perspective. Every time that they expected, and gained, public audience, they destroyed the public confidence. Worse, they forced the order of battle into a political cess-pool that only guaranteed the needless deaths of Americans.

Sorry, but I have neither the faith in, nor the experience with, the sources advocating that we will lose this battle unless we do "X" or "Y", to accept them for anything other than outsiders playing a game with men's lives.

Looking for past situations for guidance in present scenarios is prudent. Relying on assumptions garnered from what we didn't do in the past is a fool's game. It's not 1965 any longer. Vietnam was fought largely based upon lessons learned in Korea, strategically. Those lessons, and the advice of all too many political hacks, failed in Vietnam. The same approach will fail in Iraq.

For those who mention Somalia. That was doomed to failure from the beginning. Playing UN "target of opportunity", with such a small force, was ludicrous. We sent more men into Granada. Thank Clinton for those deaths.

The total number of foreign fighters in Iraq will be assessed later. I believe that the numbers, for purely political reasons, are being underestimated deliberately. There's an election coming up, and the politicians have repeatedly shown absolutely zero integrity during election time. Or any other time, for that matter.

If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to admit it. It wouldn't be the first time. However, I lived through the idiocy and corruption of the 1960's and 1970's, and have only a jaundiced eye to cast upon today's whiz kids, and their opinions.

 

[Rob P.]

Unless they can form military units to fight the US/Iraqi army, then they cannot win.

Perhaps you should look at Amercian history again. If so you may want to revise that statement.

Our country was formed by citizens standing up in small groups against an organized army. We didn't have an army and our fledgeling constitution forbid one from being formed as a "standing army". Paul Revere certainly didn't belong to any "millitary unit" yet his contribution to winning the war of independence is the stuff of song and legend. These small groups of farmers and hunters weren't "military units" - just ordinary people with a passion and belief and a willingness to put themselves in harms way.

Further along the time stream, we have the "indian uprising" during the years we expanded west and colonized the remainng portions of this nation.

Until we exterminated the buffalo and decimated his food supply, native american's were winning the overall battle against the U.S. military. They didn't have "military units" either. Just numbers and open territory outside the military enclaves (forts).

You can also look at the Philipines, South America, and Africa to see that guerilla units are more sucessful than military tactics. The ONLY way to defeat this type of enemy is to totally conquer them; root, branch, and leaf. That means total supression and control of the entire populace. Rome, Napoleon, Attila, Hannibal and all the others used this tactic and created empires because the people had no ability to fight back after their armies came through.

Vietnam was a political mess from the start. Unfortunately, our current politicians are meddling in the Iraq situation and will create that same mess again there because they don't have the guts or political will to use the total supression scheme of warfare. Unless we do that or pull out of Iraq, we'll eventually lose to their guerillas.

So, the issue as I see it, is to either USE the military AS military and not police or come home. Using the military as police and peacekeepers is a fatal policy.

 

[Rebar]

Our country was formed by citizens standing up in small groups against an organized army. We didn't have an army and our fledgeling constitution forbid one from being formed as a "standing army".

This is patent nonsense. The battle for America was won by the Continental Army, supplimented by militia. Vietnam was united under communist rule by the North Vietnamese Army , after the disaster of the TET offensive destroyed the VietCong. The times where a pure guerilla movement won, are very few.

Not that these terrorists are even organized as well as a guerilla band. There is no strategy or overall goal, nor are they even working together, or under any centralized control. All they can accomplish is to give the liberal/left propaganda to bash Bush with.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

No Rebar, patent nonsense is believing that the Iraqis/insurgents cannot win against American forces. It is very cheap for them to maintain their efforts and extremely expensive for the Americans to maintain theirs. They believe they are fighting a holy war. Except for some doubtful overly patriotic letters supposedly from American soldiers, most American soldiers are not in Iraq because they believe they need to be there for the freedom of the Iraqi people, but because they have been ordered there. Private security "consultants" are there because they are making big bucks, not because they believe that they are doing the right thing.

Whether the are organized as well as a guerilla band or not isn't really relevant. What is relevant is that their loose organization is proving to be effective. It is so effective that the Americans are not leaving. It is so effective that tours have been extended and some folks rotated home to America have been rotated back.

Let me ask you this. If the opposition is so bad off, so poorly organized, in no way could ever win without military organization and support, then why haven't we defeated them with our great military power, organization, body armor, satellites, radios, aircraft, etc. You contend they can't win, but they don't know that. That makes them very very dangerous.

The Somalis were nothing but heavily armed street thugs with no real organization military and yet they kicked out asses right out of their country. Sure, the head count put the US way ahead, but our nose was bloodied and we backed down and left the entire country after a localized battle that we claim to have won. That is pretty impressive of an accomplishment by nothing more than localized, untrained, stoned, starving street thugs who used things such as burning tires as a means of communication.

 

[Rebar]

No Rebar, patent nonsense is believing that the Iraqis/insurgents cannot win against American forces.

They cannot. It's a fact. They can make us quit, but they cannot defeat us unless our will gives out.

but because they have been ordered there.

Well, no sh**, you join the military and you have to something you might or might not like to do. Shocking. Maybe if Clinton didn't cut those two divisions out of the army we'd be better off, but it is what it is.

then why haven't we defeated them with our great military power, organization, body armor, satellites, radios, aircraft, etc.

Simply because they can feed in fresh terrorists from Iran and Syria. But they need these cannon fodder because they're getting slaughtered.

The Somalis were nothing but heavily armed street thugs with no real organization military and yet they kicked out asses right out of their country.

They didn't kick us out, Clinton tucked tail and ran. Which is the only way the terrorists can win in Iraq. And that's the exact plan the democrats have, tuck tail and run.

 

[Eghad]

So Rebar How do you propose to fight the Jihadists that are in the United States? Shock and Awe? Nuclear Weapons? Sattelite Technology?

 

[BreacherUp!]

The answer to how we win the war on terror/Iraq is abundantly clear in one word: RESOLVE. We maintain it, we win. We pack up and run (again) we lose. Simple as that.

 

[Eghad]

good point about the American Revolution....

The Britsh Crown was fighting an idea.

The Russians in Afghanistan were fighting an idea.

how do you kill an idea with a bullet, bayonet or bomb?

The Jihadists are hungry like the colonists...and we Americans have gotten a tad fat and lazy.

2-0 so far for the idea

Its time to crap or get off the pot in Iraq.

getting off the pot isnt an option.

 

[Rebar]

So Rebar How do you propose to fight the Jihadists that are in the United States? Shock and Awe? Nuclear Weapons? Sattelite Technology?

We have to stop giving visas to muslim clerics, who come here to preach hate.

We need to stop all immigration from Islamic countrys.

We need to infiltrate American mosques, find out who's advocating violence, and if they are not citizens deport them, if they are keep a careful watch on them.

 

[Eghad]

Infiltrating the mosques is easier said than done....

It is a religious place of worship for most moslems. Can you imagine the uproar over the FBI infilitrating a religious place of worship? CAIR has even punked out FOX News about some stuff they wanted to put on TV. Some of these Islamic councils carry some political weight. They use our own laws against us...

The next part is getting people to infiltrate the mosque.... your average white agent just is not going to get the job done. If you pass scrutiny long enough they will probably put you on some stuff like passing out leaflets and other assorted fetch it work.

If it was up to me I would give the muslim clerics who preach hate a bag of ham sammiches and a plane ticket home.... However, we have this thing called freedom of speech. Publicy the clerics would tell us what we wanted to hear but privately they would tell the need for Jihad. In the Christian religion lying is a sin. In the Islam world lying to spread Isalm to a Jihadist is considered a duty.

 

[GoSlash27]

Uh-huh. Who needs freedom of religion and freedom of speech anyway?

 

[Eghad]

Me

 

[Rebar]

Who needs freedom of religion and freedom of speech anyway?

Are you saying we cannot choose who we let immigrate into our country? You are very wrong. How many have overstayed their visas, right now at this moment? Far too many. How many radicals have been handed over by the mythical "moderate muslem community"? None that I know of.

It's time and past time to round up those on expired visas, time to stop issuing visas from known islamic countries supporting terrorism, time to stop bring muslems here who have no intention of becoming Americans. There are plenty of Poles, Indians, Philippinos, Irish, who really want to come to America, to become Americans.

And you all didn't seem to mind that the KKK and the so-called militia movement was completely infiltrated by the FBI. Why do muslims get special protection, besides the two-faced political correctness they wrap themselves in? We clearly cannot rely on the muslem community to point out those intent on terrorism, we need to infiltrate and sniff them out the old fashioned way, PC nonsense be damned.

 

[shootinstudent]

It's time and past time to round up those on expired visas, time to stop issuing visas from known islamic countries supporting terrorism, time to stop bring muslems here who have no intention of becoming Americans.

We don't need to do anything at all. After all, look at the first post in this thread...Al Qaeda is getting desperate and losing the war. They're bound to fail and our current methods are wiping the floor with them, so we shouldn't go messing with what is an obviously sound way to do battle....

Right?

 

[model 25]

good point about the American Revolution....

The Britsh Crown was fighting an idea.

The Russians in Afghanistan were fighting an idea.

how do you kill an idea with a bullet, bayonet or bomb?

The Jihadists are hungry like the colonists...and we Americans have gotten a tad fat and lazy.

2-0 so far for the idea

The American way isn't to fight an idea it is to give these people a "NEW IDEA" called democracy and freedom. Sure all the other countries were failures but we won't fail as long as we don't cut and run like cowards.

Let me ask you, What religion did the people follow before the Muslim religion came along? What made them change besides a new idea forced upon them by sword?

25