The Former Al Qaeda In Iraq
Posted January 25th, 2008 by Da King
For over four years, the Democrats have told us we can't win in Iraq, that the war is lost, that the surge was useless, that Iraqis weren't capable of democracy, that the war was immoral, etc, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. You know the drill.
Fortunately, neither the Bush administration, our troops, nor the Iraqis listened.
I hope Hillary has suspended her disbelief by now, because the surge was a great success. Al Qaeda has been driven out of most of Iraq, and now has it's lone stronghold in the north.
And they are about to get their butts stomped there too.
Not by the americans, but BY IRAQI SECURITY FORCES. It's been a long time coming, but I'm sure glad the time is here.
Here's the story from Reuters in Baghdad:
Iraqi security forces have begun a "decisive" final offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq to push the Sunni Islamist militants out of their last major stronghold in the north, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Friday.
[U.S. military commanders] describe Mosul, capital of Nineveh province, as al Qaeda's last major urban stronghold in Iraq.
"We have set up an operations room in Nineveh to complete the final battle with al Qaeda along with guerrillas and members of the previous regime," Maliki said, referring to other Sunni militants the Shi'ite-led government says remain loyal to former leader Saddam Hussein.
"Today our forces started moving to Mosul. What we are planning in Nineveh will be decisive," he said during a ceremony for victims of violence in the holy Shi'ite city of Kerbala in southern Iraq, broadcast on state television.
"Now we have a real army. The days when the militants could do anything in front of our armed forces are gone," Maliki said.
Now you know why the economy has become the number one issue in the presidential election. It's because we are winning in Iraq. The Iraqi forces are taking control of their own country. Al Qaeda, who was responsible for the vast majority of the bombings and chaos, will be beaten. Sometime soon, the Democrats may actually become right about one thing regarding Iraq - the troops might get to start coming home, because their job will be over, as Iraqis take control of their own country, as was planned all along.
Sorry, Defeatocrats, looks like Iraq will be a success after all. Better luck next time. No, strike that. The next time, I hope you join the side of the righteous, instead of acting as useful idiot tools for the enemy.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
"Sorry, Defeatocrats, looks like Iraq will be a success after all. Better luck next time. No, strike that. The next time, I hope you join the side of the righteous, instead of acting as useful idiot tools for the enemy."
How does any sort of success now change the lead-up?
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=home&context=overview&id=945
January 25th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Is that the neat study Soros put together?
January 26th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Is The 'Surge' Working? Some New Facts
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014427%20
"There is, however, another way to assess the Surge. This paper shows how data from world financial markets can be used to shed light on the central question of whether the Surge has increased or diminished the prospect of today's Iraq surviving into the future. In particular, I examine the price of Iraqi state bonds, which the Iraqi government is currently servicing, on world financial markets. After the Surge, there is a sharp decline in the price of those bonds, relative to alternative bonds. The decline signaled a 40% increase in the market's expectation that Iraq will default. This finding suggests that to date the Surge is failing to pave the way toward a stable Iraq and may in fact be undermining it."
January 26th, 2008 at 5:57 am
da truth,
Do you really want me to address the 'Bush lied' thing for the millionth time ? Sigh. All I'm going to say is, if Bush lied, so did Congress, so did Clinton, so did Democrats, so did France, Russia, England, and Germany, and why were the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq for over 10 years looking for wmd that didn't exist ? I guess the UN lied too. I'm so tired of this subject. Saddam was a murderous tyrant who governed a sadistic police state. They didn't call him the Butcher of Baghdad for nothing. He was responsible for the deaths of up to a million people. He sought nuclear weapons, used wmd on his own people, and invaded Kuwait, our ally and our energy source. We stopped him. Then he violated all the terms of his surrender, along with about 14 UN resolutions. Saddam deserved his fate. The USA was there to give it to him. If not, he'd still be in power, and a threat to the world. Now, we've been fighting Al Qaeda for 4 1/2 years in Iraq, since they stepped into the breech to fight us there. Now Al Qaeda is being driven out, and the Iraqis are taking control of their own country. Wasn't that the desired goal ? Mistakes were made in this war for certain, but the USA is on the side of the righteous. Anybody who doesn't think so is just what I said, a useful idiot tool of the enemy.
January 26th, 2008 at 6:04 am
Jimmy,
Are you kidding me ? You cite some study that says the surge isn't working because of it's impact on bonds ? Sounds like someone's grabbing at straws. Iraq is a war, not an investment strategy.
And last time I checked, Iraq still has tons of oil, the most in demand natural resource in the world. I think they'll scrape by, unless the Dems get the presidency and destroy all the progress that has been made, as they've been promising to do on the campaign trail.
January 26th, 2008 at 9:57 am
I hear Las Vegas has lowered the Iraqi national soccer team's odds against winning the next Olympics Games, from 150-1 to 300-1.
The surge my butt!
January 26th, 2008 at 10:03 am
The Iraqis are about to defeat some enemy that wasn't present in Iraq before the U.S. military occupied the country and you are shouting …Victory??
And what about the thousands of new Islamic extremists created by invading Iraq? Would that be viewed as …Victory?
I do not welcome more bloodshed, and so I'm happy to see fewer deaths in Iraq.
But honestly now King, how can anyone regard Iraq as some kind of win-loss thing?
We lost the support, cooperation and trust of many countries, we're still bogged down in an expensive occupation and al-Qaeda types have been rejuvenated.
How is that winning?
This…."Sounds like someone's grabbing at straws. Iraq is a war, not an investment strategy."….I gotta kick out of.
Of course Iraq is an investment strategy. If it was a war, we would be able to identify who it is we're warring against. We can't.
January 26th, 2008 at 10:14 am
This too….
"Mistakes were made in this war for certain, but the USA is on the side of the righteous. Anybody who doesn't think so is just what I said, a useful idiot tool of the enemy."
I've often, as you know, talked about American exceptionalism. The USA does both good things and bad things vis-a-vis the world's countries.
The theme of the USA, while we are doing good and bad, is empire building……imperialism. To deny this is to deny history, especially history of the last 50-60 years.
America uses it's military resources to get what it wants and guard what we claim is ours throughout the world.
That's what we're doing inside of Iraq. Protecting our resources.
Jimmy's point, well taken, was that the "invisible hand" of the market that conservatives put so much faith in….is saying the future is not bright in Iraq. Chances of "success" are slim.
I don't really believe that anyone who thinks the U.S. is not exactly righteous concerning Iraq is an "useful idiot tool of the enemy".
That sounds a bit Limbaughish…..speaking of useful idiots.
January 26th, 2008 at 11:59 am
That's right Rev, close your eyes real tight and pretend there is no Al Qaeda, that Saddam and his thugs were really good guys, that Iraqis aren't capable, that the surge didn't work, and that Bush is Dr. Evil. You can even believe Jimmy is correct, and that the surge is a failure because of Iraq's bond futures, or by counting the bumps on your head. It makes no difference to me.
I hear it helps if you click the heels of your ruby slippers together three times.
Besides, although I appreciate your viewpoint, I already got most of your talking points off of the new 'Ask Zawahiri' website.
January 26th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
See that's just it, King, none of us are pretending there is no Al-Quaeda. What we are saying is that, and you basically admit in your first post in response to mine, is that this war had nothing to do with Al-Quada. And you can say that everybody lied, but it was the current administration that orchestrated the whole thing. The end does not justify the means. Rev is right on point on this one, hands down. It's imperialism at its worst.
January 26th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to the war by any historical account.
It certainly is a positive sign Iraqis started to revolt against them. However, the problem with insurgencies is they can wait it out and cause chaos once American forces run out of manpower and/or money (they'll have to raise taxes sooner or later). They'll have to establish effective Iraqi governance before Al Qaeda is stamped out. This is, of course, not out of the question, but its highly unlikely the military (the Army in particular) can occupy the country with any significant force for the next decade or so.
Political reconciliation is going to have to come sooner rather than later if success is to be seen there.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:09 am
My morning's readings tell me that now the northwest "frontier" territory of Pakistan…..where America's 9-11 enemies are found…..have a 40,000 man strong Taliban military ready to wreak havoc in and around the region.
That ought to work out real well, huh?
That's the main reason why going into Iraq was the wrong thing to do.
Not that Iraq's Hussein didn't need to be contained/or removed eventually. I'm not saying that and no one else is saying that either.
Al-Qaeda radicals, the 9-11 American enemy, should have been dealt with thoroughly, even into Pakistan. Many Americans, like myself, believed the CinC would deal with al-Qaeda, the 9-11 American enemy.
Sadly, the CinC let us down.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:42 am
"Al Qaeda in Iraq" formed in Iraq and decided to adopt the popular "Al Qaeda" brand name as a means to get attention, recruits, and funding.
It needs to be said that the majority of bloodshed in Iraq has been the "ethnic cleansing" between the Shiites and the Sunnis. The state has been effectively partitioned. Ghettoization has forced Iraqi citizens to move from their homes to neighborhoods where they are with their own religious group. Two million people who were in "the wrong neighborhoods" have fled the country to avoid death.
Ethnic cleansing is winding down and now Bush-Cheney have created an accommodating Shiite province next to Iran.
Turkey still has a challenge of dealing with their Kurdish population, some of whom would like to move the frontier between Turkey and "Kurdistan" a few hundred miles into Turkey. Turkey has had to invade Iraq to deal with the militants.
Congratulations, Republicans, you just destroyed NATO.
January 28th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
A "good news" Reuters report met with negativity? Here I thought that Reuters and the AP could do no wrong. I mean, the AP sure did vest that "Bush Made False Statements" study well, didn't they? I didn't hear very many "this story is a lie" comments coming from the left on *that* story.
I'm just really disappointed in this Administration. After Bill Clinton completely ended all crime, death and hardship here in the US, Bush hasn't been able to accomplish the same thing in Iraq. Thank God that Hillary will be elected President soon. I'm sure she will be able to fix every problem we have in this country just by raising taxes and handing out entitlements. And then she can go to Iraq and get the Sunnis and the Shiites to hold hands.
Look, I know it's just a news story, and at the end of the day it doesn't mean much. But to attack *this* story, which, if true, could lead to an outcome in the best interest of everyone, doesn't make sense.
Which is why the Democratic candidates have stopped talking about Iraq. There is no reason to lock themselves into an opinion on the war this far in advance. Which means that they don't have any *real* beliefs about the war. Which means that voting for a Democrat because you think they oppose the war is just like voting for a Republican because you think they want to limit government. These are just politicians, playing to the crowd.
If anyone still thinks that the Islamic Fundamentalists would leave us alone if we just left them alone, they are kidding themselves. 9-11 proved that we didn't need to go to Iraq to provoke an attack. So please quit quoting the "thousands of new Al-Queda because we are in Iraq" line.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:23 am
da truth,
If this war had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, why have we been fighting Al Qaeda there for the last 4+ years ?
Al Qaeda certainly thinks the war in Iraq has a lot to do with Al Qaeda, whether you do or not, so I think that makes your point rather moot. Al Qaeda called it World War III. That's where they committed their resources to fight us. They were going to fight us whether we were in Iraq or not.
I don't think Saddam was actively collaborating with Bin Laden before the war, but how did that make Saddam any less of a threat ? Keep in mind, I was AGAINST Bush going into Iraq, though I certainly understand his reasons. After we went in there, it became supremely important that we succeed. That's where I part with the Democrats, who have actively courted an american defeat. That should be unacceptable to every american.
January 29th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
*** After we went in there, it became supremely important that we succeed. That's where I part with the Democrats, who have actively courted an american defeat. That should be unacceptable to every american.***
No matter why we went to Iraq it has always been supremely important that we succeed there. The importance that al Qaeda put on the outcome indicates that. The Defeatocrats and many other leftist enemies of Bush keep refusing to see what effect us admitting defeat and getting out of Iraq would have on moderate Muslims all over the world. They are so anti-Bush that they just can't admit that millions of moderatee Muslims will turn radical if they think the "Great Satan" has been defeated in Iraq.
I have told Rev Red for years that all Muslims believe that some day there will be an international caliphate and that the radicals believe it can happen in their lifetimes and moderates all believe that it will be much later. If they see the US defeated by a bunch of insurgents and their helpers from outside the nation how many of them may well change over the the radical way of thinking? I fail to see many moderate Muslims standing up to the radicals so it becomes very apparent to me that millions of them will change over to the radical side believing that they may be able to extend Muslim control to the world in their lifetimes.
Defeatocrats wouldn't allow people to think like that since the only thing of importance to them is political power at home. I don't know where they may go after they gain that power at home but I don't think it would be fighting those who want the US to be a part of the Caliphate. I think they are largely willing to give in as long as the Muslims stay away from them which could happen as they solidfy their positions in other parts of the world. They are so busy giving in, if necessary, that they won't ever see what is happening around us. It is sad that the Defeatocrats are so near to winning an election, even after giving up on arguing about Iraq because of our success there, but it appears that they may manage that win which would be a loss in the long run for the nation.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
yeah, Roysoldboy
I notice you and your Repeatblican friends avoid my account of who Al Qaeda in Iraq is.
In any case, when you go to family reunions, do you encourage the young 'uns to join the Army or Marines when they get out of school? Have you told your children or grandchildren to join the war effort, too?
How are you supporting victory, then?
January 30th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Tom,
You said, "I notice you and your Repeatblican friends avoid my account of who Al Qaeda in Iraq is".
That's because it doesn't matter. When an Al Qaeda suicide bomber blows up a market full of innocent people in Baghdad, you don't need to see his resume to know he's the enemy.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:30 am
Um…Mike….
"A "good news" Reuters report met with negativity?"
Maliki, a U.S tool if there ever was one, makes some statements about Mosul and then if some Americans don't put much stock in what he says……those Americans are being negative about good news?
And…
"If anyone still thinks that the Islamic Fundamentalists would leave us alone if we just left them alone, they are kidding themselves. 9-11 proved that we didn't need to go to Iraq to provoke an attack. So please quit quoting the "thousands of new Al-Queda because we are in Iraq" line."
The reason given by Bin Laden's attacking us on 9-11 was our military presence in the sacred Muslim lands of Saudi Arabia. Why did your president remove that military out of Saudi shortly after 9-11 if leaving "them" alone won't make any difference?
I simply don't see any logic at all in "9-11 proved we didn't need to go to Iraq to provoke an attack."
What is this supposed to mean or prove? Islamic extremists have been carrying out attacks for decades. The question to be answered is why.
There ARE thousands more Islamic extremists BECAUSE we went to Iraq. Why? Because Bin Laden and Zawihiri's rhetoric about America being imperialistic and Islam being under attack rings true with the Iraq occupation…..thus convincing more young Muslims to join Osama's "cause".
And by the way, many reports that have been done have concluded that there are more Islamic extremists since Iraq began…than there was before.