Why Al Qaeda Has Lost Its War in Iraq

[Sayeret]

While al Qaeda manages to set off one or more suicide bombs a day in Iraq, it finds itself losing the war it is waging. The bombs are killing mainly Iraqis, and the Iraqis have noticed this. Iraqis have also noticed that al Qaeda's terror tactics are little different from those of their former, unlamented dictator, Saddam Hussein. But al Qaeda expects the Iraqi Islamic radicals to benefit from the bombing campaign. However, the only Iraqi Islamic radicals that support al Qaeda are the Sunni Arab ones, and these are a minority of the Sunni Arab (20 percent of the population) minority. Moreover, most of the muscle, and money, for anti-government violence comes from Sunni Arab supporters of the Baath Party. Saddam Hussein led the Baath Party for over three decades. While Saddam is locked up, as are most of the senior Baath Party leaders, the thousands of thugs and enforcers that maintained Baath's control over Iraq are still out there. Many of these guys are still doing what they have always done; terrorizing Iraqis into supporting Baath, or at least not opposing it. Baath has cleverly shaped it's message to sound like a patriotic call to "expel foreign invaders." But most Iraqis are not fooled. Opinion polls consistently show that over 80 percent of the population wants nothing to do with Baath. Yet the only alternative to a democratic government is Baath, or a religious dictatorship. Al Qaeda makes itself unpopular by killing hundreds of Iraqis with suicide bombs. Baath makes itself hated with its continued terror campaign, kidnapping and assassinations. The terror tactics of al Qaeda and Baath have succeeded in some other Arab countries, much to the dismay of the locals. Syria is the only other country run by the Baath Party, and it is another Republic of Fear. Iran is dominated by Islamic conservatives, who rule by intimidation and terror. Afghanistan, when ruled by the Islamic conservative Taliban, also suffered under unpopular applications of intimidation and terror.

For centuries, Western democracies have considered the Arabs unable, or incapable of creating a democratic government, or any government that did not depend on terror and intimidation to maintain order. This debate continues, although in a more carefully worded fashion. It's not just the Baath Party and al Qaeda that have a vested interest in seeing democracy fail in Iraq. However, if you talk to a lot of people who deal with Iraqis on a regular basis (military civil affairs, reconstruction workers, troops in general) and Iraqis themselves, you find that while Iraqis still fear Baath and al Qaeda, they still want to try democracy. Iraqis know what goes on in the West. Millions of Iraqis have fled to the West (Europe and North America) in the last two decades, and the migrants have made it clear to the folks back home how democracy works. While Iraqi culture puts more emphasis on believing rumors and outrageous conspiracy theories, you still have to eat. Most Iraqis believe that a government "of the people, by the people and for the people," would be better at putting food on the table, and a DVD player on top of the new TV set, than some Baath Party thug or religious leader.

Al Qaeda will fight on until the last of their members is rounded up by Iraqi police. But al Qaeda have already lost their war in Iraq.

[username]

is that your thoughts or some kind of media article?

[BarkingSquirrel]

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20049252.asp

[OB Kenobi]

Moreover, most of the muscle, and money, for anti-government violence comes from Sunni Arab supporters of the Baath Party.

Republicans still living in fantasyland.

Do I have to explain it further?

Ok, for the benefit of those who are little "slow" in this forum: the Shiites, that's what. I guess their daily attacks, their takeovers of entire cities doesn't count? That they've been bombing Iraqi police stations left and right, and killing Iraqi NG troops doesn't count? Oh yeah, it's just those "Baathist remnants, a few Baathist diehards," that's all it is, and Al Zarqawi is the boogeyman. Yeah, none of them are cooperating with each other, most Iraqis want America to liberate them from Islam and accept Jesus.

Republicans... in fantasyland.

[jmatucd]

“most Iraqis want America to liberate them from Islam and accept Jesus.

Republicans... in fantasyland.”

Convert them to Christianity? These aren’t the crusades from hundreds of years ago. I think you need to find your pills before the conspiracy-theory ray wears off on you.

[ArmedPacifist]

“most Iraqis want America to liberate them from Islam and accept Jesus.

Republicans... in fantasyland.”

Convert them to Christianity? These aren’t the crusades from hundreds of years ago. I think you need to find your pills before the conspiracy-theory ray wears off on you.

Operation Resolute Sword.....yeah nothing Crusade'ish about that.

[DE_Six]

Even though I don't agree with everything in the article, I think that the possibility of Al-Qaeda losing more than it gains in Iraq is very plausible. The collateral damages of the attacks on the Coalition and increasingly, on the Iraqi national guard, police and government will likely erode any popular support in the long run. Much like most populations in the aftermath of war, the desire for peace and security will overcome the call to resistance. IMHO, I think this is already true for the vast majority of the Iraqi people trying to lead a normal life, not fighting the occupation forces. They have probably come to the logical conclusion that the foreign troops will leave as soon as the situation is stable and normalized. Insurgence can only push back this event.

I also don't see why violence in Iraq could be a good thing for Al-Qaeda. Its leadership, cadres and most of its rank-and-file are from relatively peaceful countries, like Saudi Arabia or Egypt. So far, they have been popular because they strike at western nations and interests. It is now the first time they inflict collateral damages to their own. How their popular support will stand this toll is tricky to predict. AQ is not the Hezbollah, they have no other course of action to gain support but kill "infidels". No charitable networks of schools and clinics, no political or press agencies, etc. This is the kind of consolidation that guaranteed the Hezbollah popular support while their guerrilla operations killed numbers of Lebanese civilians. The backlash effect of Al-Qaeda inflicting important casualties on muslim civilians is unknown yet, but I don' t think it will be positive for them.

If it was a mistake for the US to go in Iraq the way it did, it might well turn out Al-Qaeda also made a mistake by picking its fight.

[Secret Squirrel]

I also don't see why violence in Iraq could be a good thing for Al-Qaeda.

It's keeps a vast amount of U.S resources, including manpower, financial and HUMINT resources, tied up.


If it was a mistake for the US to go in Iraq the way it did, it might well turn out Al-Qaeda also made a mistake by picking its fight.

Do you think AQ is playing a major role in Iraq? Or does it have just one key guy there doing what he can to keep a lot of resources tied up?

[DE_Six]

It's keeps a vast amount of U.S resources, including manpower, financial and HUMINT resources, tied up.

Well, we won't get in the resource allocation debate again, won't we? ;)
As I said before, we do not know what percentage of total US resource is tied down in Iraq and much less how worthy the expense is (that is, how much is AQ suffering from its confrontation with the US there).
I think you have a point concerning the financial resource, HUMINT, well, I don't know what percentage of US capabilities are allocated to Iraq, but true, its assets that can't be deloyed elsewhere. As for troops, I think they are not that relevant in the war on terror, bar the actual operations against nations that sponsor terrorism (like Afghanistan). But there is not that many.



Do you think AQ is playing a major role in Iraq? Or does it have just one key guy there doing what he can to keep a lot of resources tied up?

I don't know for a fact what every insurgent is. What I think is that the core of the Iraqi insurgence is artificial, as in not a national resistance movement. As I said, I don't think that the Iraqi people believes the best way is to fight. Their main priority now is to rebuild their lives and country after 10 years of embargo and a war. I think the insurgence is the result of a hijack from different agendas. Al-Qaeda, former Baathists, religious fringe groups, etc. It is very possible that some of the fighters are simply guns for hire. Former mudjahadeens have "flooded" after 1989 and joined faith-based wars ever since. One of bin Laden's occupation after the war with the Soviet Union was to find jobs for these men, dispatching them.

I think there is more than one key guy, but likely not many. They don't need many. A dozen planners is all it takes. They recruit among the aforementioned groups (baathists, islamists, etc) and voila. Basic force multiplication, the linchpin of guerrilla warfare. Since I don't see why the Iraqis would fight other than if urged to by outside agendas, I think that getting rid of the agitators would seriously slow down the insurgence. In that manner, AQ (or affiliated, or like-minded group) is playing a key role, yes.

Also, isn't it a common argument against the war to state that this premature war has fueled Al-Qaeda's cause? That would imply that Al-Qaeda is involved.

[Sayeret]

Republicans still living in fantasyland.

Its not like some of the Liberals deny that terrorism is a threat. :roll:

[MKtexan]

Ob Kenobi said

Republicans still living in fantasyland.

Do I have to explain it further?

Ok, for the benefit of those who are little "slow" in this forum: the Shiites, that's what. I guess their daily attacks, their takeovers of entire cities doesn't count? That they've been bombing Iraqi police stations left and right, and killing Iraqi NG troops doesn't count? Oh yeah, it's just those "Baathist remnants, a few Baathist diehards," that's all it is, and Al Zarqawi is the boogeyman. Yeah, none of them are cooperating with each other, most Iraqis want America to liberate them from Islam and accept Jesus.

Republicans... in fantasyland.


Exactly what is your point?? Hmm......... I do enjoy frequent visits to fantasy land, not. :bash:


Who do you want to win the war in Iraq, Kenobi???

[Sir Zach of R.]

Ob Kenobi said

Republicans still living in fantasyland.

Do I have to explain it further?

Ok, for the benefit of those who are little "slow" in this forum: the Shiites, that's what. I guess their daily attacks, their takeovers of entire cities doesn't count? That they've been bombing Iraqi police stations left and right, and killing Iraqi NG troops doesn't count? Oh yeah, it's just those "Baathist remnants, a few Baathist diehards," that's all it is, and Al Zarqawi is the boogeyman. Yeah, none of them are cooperating with each other, most Iraqis want America to liberate them from Islam and accept Jesus.

Republicans... in fantasyland.


Exactly what is your point?? Hmm......... I do enjoy frequent visits to fantasy land, not. :bash:


Who do you want to win the war in Iraq, Kenobi???

No kidding. I think it's time for OB to announce who he supports. So, OB your next post should look like this: I, OB Kenobi, hereby state that I support _________________________.

[MKtexan]

No kidding. I think it's time for OB to announce who he supports. So, OB your next post should look like this: I, OB Kenobi, hereby state that I support _________________________.


I agree, Zach

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Ob Kenobi said

Republicans still living in fantasyland.

Do I have to explain it further?

Ok, for the benefit of those who are little "slow" in this forum: the Shiites, that's what. I guess their daily attacks, their takeovers of entire cities doesn't count? That they've been bombing Iraqi police stations left and right, and killing Iraqi NG troops doesn't count? Oh yeah, it's just those "Baathist remnants, a few Baathist diehards," that's all it is, and Al Zarqawi is the boogeyman. Yeah, none of them are cooperating with each other, most Iraqis want America to liberate them from Islam and accept Jesus.

Republicans... in fantasyland.


Exactly what is your point?? Hmm......... I do enjoy frequent visits to fantasy land, not. :bash:


Who do you want to win the war in Iraq, Kenobi???

No kidding. I think it's time for OB to announce who he supports. So, OB your next post should look like this: I, OB Kenobi, hereby state that I support _________________________.

heh that's easy..."anyone but Bush". He has no clue how to proceed, who to listen to, what the situation is - all he can do is mimic the media in their endless search for traction on the issue of Iraq. "It's a quagmire! All is lost! We're backing the wrong horse! The sky is falling!" Nothing new here.

I wonder if people like that have ever had to make big, important decisions when there was no "good" choice. This struck me the other day at work, when I had to do something like that - choose between two really ****ty options, which would both negatively affect hundreds of people for years to come.

But I made a decision - which can easily be criticized based on the various points against the choice I made. Of course, there were equally as many reasons not to decide the other way. I didn't just bide my time until responsibility for the decision went to somebody else (as elected officials love to do). I'm sure that somewhere within the organization is a nut job who just wants to offer up bizarre conspiracy theories as to why I've victimized him.

[Secret Squirrel]

Well, we won't get in the resource allocation debate again, won't we? ;) As I said before, we do not know what percentage of total US resource is tied down in Iraq and much less how worthy the expense is (that is, how much is AQ suffering from its confrontation with the US there).

Fair enough. ;)


Also, isn't it a common argument against the war to state that this premature war has fueled Al-Qaeda's cause? That would imply that Al-Qaeda is involved.

No it would imply that AQ doesnt have to be involved to fuel the war in Iraq. If elements of AQ werent in Iraq, the insurgency would be still be going. And there in lies the argument that this is benefiting AQ because of diverting resources involved in trying to quell the violence in Iraq when they could be used to hunt AQ. Of course, we dont have hard facts and perfect numbers regarding various resources, but I think it's safe to say that a large percentage has been diverted to Iraq. There's also the "recruitment" argument.

[budanski]

Diverted resources from ghani? Iraq at present IS the main front in the War on Terrorism. According to Tommy Franks, he dismissed that lie by pointing out that prior to the Iraq invasion, the U.S. had around 9,000 troops in afghanistan after the invasion, it grew to 10,000. So where did the extra thousand come from?

[KB]

Doubt AQ is disappointed with the situation in Iraq. The US is struggling to quell the insurgency (which admittedly AQ may only partly be funding/inspiring). More importantly, growing dissent between the US and its allies (particularly Europe), noticeable shrinking of the "coalition of the willing", and nightly images of violence and death in Arabic/Islamic media to keep the recruiting lines from drying up.

Israelis and Palestinians have been at it now for almost 40 years. US has a long way to go.

[NicNZ]

Heh I love the Cold War mentality of grouping all the attacks as Al-Queda attacks.

[Steel21]

Latest intel estimates that AQ numbers fewere than 500 in-country. The majority of insurgents are Iraqi.

If you are against Baath, you might as well arrest Alawi, who is a baathist. Baathist are secular nationalists. They were found popularity in the post WWII mid-east in a anti-imperial (French+British) but secualr reforms (demeber Nassar?).

Their agendaa is directly contrasted with those of Wahabi extremists.

The only way we can bring Iraq under order is

Send over 25Mil Americans there so that there is more Americans there than Iraqis. Otherwise we will fail and will be forced to leave sooner or later.

Ultimatly there is 2 ways to leave, ie India or ie Vietnam. But resulted in civil war. The obvious exception if Germany and Japan should we leave someday.

But we all know Germany and Japan is not Iraq. For one thing, I cant foresee a Iraqi made playstation nor BMW.

[OB Kenobi]

Who do you want to win the war in Iraq, Kenobi???

I want the Iraqi people to get justice, so that they don't stay our enemies for the next two decades.

[OB Kenobi]

Who do you want to win the war in Iraq, Kenobi???

No kidding. I think it's time for OB to announce who he supports. So, OB your next post should look like this: I, OB Kenobi, hereby state that I support _________________________.

In the case of Iraq, I support whoever is the legitimate leader of Iraq, which should be decided in a fair *nation-wide* election monitored by the UN. None of this "some Iraqis can't vote" nonsense. They can't vote? They can travel to safe areas to vote! Bush is lying as usual, because he's trying to get his puppet elected.

Other than that, I support the migration away from oil to alternative and renewable energy like nuclear, solar, natural gas, hydrogen, etc.

It's easy to stop the terrorists, stop using their oil!

[Cassiar]

Why Al Qaeda Has Lost Its War in Iraq.

Because they never showed up.

[mobster]

The Taliban and its members will all eventually die because of this.


























http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/viewimage/TVScreenCNNBreakingNews.jpg








And I hope every single one of those mother ****ers dies a horrible, lonely death by a US soldier.

[MKtexan]

Cassiar said

Because they never showed up.

i hope your just kidding.

[moughoun]

The problem is those group's not just Al Qaida btw, are not in Iraq for the short term, the US want's a functing country so they can leave in peace, the other side doesn't and all they a have to do is keep the insurgency going and it will fuel it self......