Al Qaeda in Iraq getting desperate

[Walsingham]

Reports have been coming in for over a two weeks of a rift between the Sunni insurgency and the (nominally Sunni) Al Qaeda jihadis. Apparently mainstream nationalist Sunni factions are trying to get their factions into a cohesive bloc in order to more effectively bargain at the national level. Meanwhile the international jihadis have been doing what comes naturally and annoying the bejaysus out of their hosts - the regular Iraqis - trhough general arrogance and aggression. Last year this saw several towns cooperate with US authorities to turf out Al Qaeda members to the West of Baghdad. Recent operations suggest the same thing is now happening to the East. Predictaby there have been a number of attacks on nationalist Sunni insurgents which seem to have been carried out by Al Qaeda groups in a counter-productive attempt to cow them into submission.

 

Al Qaeda in Iraq has a very simple strategy - to provoke a civil war of ethnic cleansing that the Coalition will be unable and unwilling to halt. As previously stated, this is beginning to irk the mainstream Sunnis who would quite like to be alive and in possession of more than a smoking pile of rubble when all's said and done. They really can't afford to fall out with their Sunni hosts, because in this 'nightmare' scenario they would suddenly be stranded in a very hostile land.

 

In order to force a reconciliation, Al Qaeda has opted for a pretty bold faced operational campaign. They are putting pressure on the Shias to act in reprisal for a revolting sequence of bombings aimed at mosques and shrines, including the increasingly less priceless Al-Askari shrine (that was blown up about 18 months ago). Regrettably, the reprisals have begun, with at least three Sunni mosques targetted in the last few days. It may be instructive to consider the BBC's chart below, which shows how the last attack on the Al-Askari mosque precipitated serious unrest.

 

 

I would suggest this illustrates yet again the utterly ruthless and singularly destructive nature of the threat from Al Qaeda, and the importance of making a distinction between nationalism and islamofascism in the insurgency.

[Volourn]

I have ahrd time believing any chart that lists more deaths than inuries. It's beyond illogical. Sorry.

[Guard Dog]

Al Qaeda in Iraq has a very simple strategy - to provoke a civil war of ethnic cleansing that the Coalition will be unable and unwilling to halt. As previously stated, this is beginning to irk the mainstream Sunnis who would quite like to be alive and in possession of more than a smoking pile of rubble when all is said and done.

 

I have avoided Iraq threads because they tend to dissolve into partisan bickering about Bush, unlawful war, whose intelligence said what, who had WMDs etc. There are very few military veterans on this board and, of all of them, I think only one other (Giftd1) has served in a combat zone. Odds I will not convince anyone I'm right and I doubt anyone is going to convince me they are right because we have different perspectives.

 

But Wals has hit on an important point here that I wonder why the coalition has not done more to exploit. The Al Qaeda fighters are not Iraqis. To them the lands and buildings are no more than lines on a map. Their desire is to hurt the enemy at any cost. The Sunni insurgency has a different goal, to seize total control of the country. But as Wals correctly points out it will be for naught if the country they seize is a smoking ruin.

 

I would suggest this illustrates yet again the utterly ruthless and singularly destructive nature of the threat from Al Qaeda, and the importance of making a distinction between nationalism and islamofascism in the insurgency.

 

I agree completely. And it is foolish and reckless in the extreme for "leaders" like US Presidential candidates John Edwards and Barack Obama to suggest the war on terror is nothing but a political slogan. The democratic party would rather lose the war and win the next election than do what must be done now, right or wrong. Thank God Wendell Wilkie and the Republican Party did not behave this way in 1941. History would be very different for many of us.

 

IMHO the war was brilliantly executed. Everything since has been a debacle. It has been that way because the coalition has been unable to accept the realities of the middle east. When the Soviet Union collapsed the counties of eastern Europe transitioned peacefully and enthusiastically to free, parliamentary republics for the most part. It was easy to do because by and large their borders not only marked limits of territory but in most cases encapsulated and separated unique cultures and ethnic identities. And where it did not the counties usually broke up like Czechoslovakia. Iraq did not exist as a country until after WWI when the LON combined three autonomous and culturally distinct regions Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra together. The only reason peace was kept so long is that the cultural hatreds were militarily suppressed by the controlling faction. First the British, then the Hashemites, finally Saddam.

 

The US assumed that once Saddam was overthrown the country would pull itself up and revel in their freedom. We all know now what really happened was chaos as long suppressed ethnic hatred came boiling up. The biggest mistake we have made was to try to keep Iraq whole. It would have been wisest to break it up into three regions and separate these people who would rather die than live together. But we did not for fear of angering Turkey. The other option would be to militarily suppress the Sunnis and Shia's in the same heavy handed manner as past governments. But we did not for fear of angering the UN. Men like Al Sadr should have "disappeared" the moment they began stirring up trouble but they did not for fear of angering the Shia's.

 

We cannot tiptoe through the middle east, being weak and indecisive for fear of pissing some one off. Doing what is right is going to anger someone and you cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs. That appears to be a lesson we are incapable of learning. That facts are, Al Qaeda is there now, a pseudo-civil war is beginning and we must either revisit one of the 3 options I laid out, or tell them all to go to hell and pull out. But before the coalition troops leave I say we give every Shia and Sunni man over 14 a rifle and a full clip. At least that way there will be a lot fewer of them when we have to go back and invade again 10 years from now.

 

That is my $.02

Edited June 15, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Hurlshort]

Eventually, the millions of peaceful Sunni's and Shi'ites are going to say enough is enough and stand against these horrific attacks on one another. I just hope it's sooner rather than later. I'm not sure what the US can do, other than to support Muslim leaders who seek peace between to two denominations.

[Walsingham]

Quickly, Volo, I share your incomprehension about the figures. However, I would suggest this is evidence of the difference between a standard war and this sort of thing. Yes you have bombings, but just as in Northern Ireland you have a lot more 'personal' killings by close range firearm. Remember that in any insurgency it is typically 'enemies of the people within the people' who die most rather than their ostensible enemies.

 

I don't think there is any grand solution to the issue. As Churchill said the answer is simply "blood, toil, tears, and sweat'. Which is to say we need to be clear on our strategic aspiration - a peaceful democratic Iraq. We need to have an operational command that understands the impact of every type of operation on the country, from inoculation drives to high altitude bombing. But at the tactical level there is going to be no substitute for the continued devotion and sacrifice of Coalition and Iraqi troops and administrators.

 

Of course that option doesn't look very exciting next to some flimflam artist claiming all we have to do is walk away whistling and it will magically make itself better. Nor can I knowingly back a plan like GD's (deliberately mendacious ) 'give them all some guns and let them sort it out*. Where GD and I do agree is that Al Qaeda are not going to quit if they succeeed in Iraq. They will be redoubled in strength and will set about doing exactly the same sort of thing in Egypt, or Indonesia, or Pakistan.

 

 

 

 

 

*Actually rumoured t have been applied once in British Somaliland during the war but let's not go into that now.

[Guard Dog]

I don't think there is any grand solution to the issue. As Churchill said the answer is simply "blood, toil, tears, and sweat'. Which is to say we need to be clear on our strategic aspiration - a peaceful democratic Iraq. We need to have an operational command that understands the impact of every type of operation on the country, from inoculation drives to high altitude bombing. But at the tactical level there is going to be no substitute for the continued devotion and sacrifice of Coalition and Iraqi troops and administrators.

 

Two other notes. If we were to walk away and allow the country to disintegrate then evey death over there was for nothing. I never believed the invasion was about WMDs. That was a pretext. It was about strategy. It was the US and UK taking a big picture view. Having Iraq Uzbekistan and Afghanistan united and allied against Iran would have surrounded them and made it impossible for them to resist an invasion. That would probably make them more agreeable and make an invasion less likely. The mistake they made was assuming Iran would not realize this or meekly allow it to happen. Instead they are arming and supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq. If I were in charge I'd have scores of OV-10 Broncoes patrolling the Iran Iraq border armed with heat sensors and rockets and on call artillery ready to fire on anything that moves across. But they don't because the do not want to piss someone else off. Sad mistake.

[Gorgon]

Well, you can keep saying that the coalition should hold out in perpetuity, the situation really does not look like it's going to stabilise and the coalition does not posess any measures to make it happen, all it can do is force a local temporary lul in the wake of a major offensive/crackdown.

 

All the coalition is doing is making sure the government is not overthrown, and with presidential elections looming in the US, that guarantee can't even be confidently made.

 

As for the bigger picture, the indication that you are somehow limiting terrorism, and 'fighting them in Iraq rather than in the US' seems like a leap of logic to me.

The mere presence of American troops in the middle east is, it would seem to me, an enormous boon to the international islamist extremists.

Edited June 15, 2007 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

GD I assume that was a freudian slip about Iran funding Al Qaeda? You know Al Qaeda is active in northern Iran attacking the Iranians?

 

As for how to handle Iran I actually think we're moving in a more sensible direction now. We can't force them down in the conventional military sense because they're pretty smart cookies and have some quite nice kit, especially in air defence and shore to ship missiles. They are also quite prepared to launch swarm small boat attacks against the carrier groups that would be very nasty indeed. Nor can we provoke them on unconventional grounds, since any attack on them could spark a massive true uprising in the Shia parts of Iraq that qould make the British retreat from Khabul look like a tea party.

 

Instead we are, and need to continue to, consulting the Iranians about Iraq, and involving them in the process, while trying not to sell the Sunni Iraqis out. They are a proud country with proud aspirations to stand on teh world stage. If we have to give them a bigger part to secure the future of Iraq then maybe we just have to lump it.

 

Gorgon, I agree that it doesn't look good, but this news here is just more proof that while we are suffering so is the opposition. As Kipling said "...Man cannot tell, but Allah knows how much the other side was hurt." Our politicians, and the media may feel they can safely run and blame everything on Bush and Tony Blair but since it is now our decision it is now our responsibility. We have to ask ourselves if we can - in good conscience - abandon a troubled country on the verge of meltdown. Can we knowingly stand aside and permit another Rwanda on a tenfold greater scale. And with the exception of Sand I don't believe anyone here could really square that with who they are.

[Sand]

As much as I want the US to keep their nose out of Iraq I also want Al Qaeda to do the same. I do hope that the US forces focus on Al Qaeda to wipe that organization out. As for the insurgency and militias composed of Iraqis, and not foreign fighters, that is Iraq's problem and the Iraqis need to find a solution to that problem, but if Al Qaeda can be quelled I have no doubt that the Sunnis and the Shiites can come to a peaceful agreement... Eventually.

Edited June 16, 2007 by Sand

[Guard Dog]

I have no doubt that the Sunnis and the Shiites can come to a peaceful agreement... Eventually.

 

I wish I could agree with that. But after hundreds of years of bitter hatred there will only be peace when one or the other is wiped out.

[Sand]

I have no doubt that the Sunnis and the Shiites can come to a peaceful agreement... Eventually.

 

I wish I could agree with that. But after hundreds of years of bitter hatred there will only be peace when one or the other is wiped out.

Or they might get sick and tired of the violence that the survivors on both sides decide to not fight each other any more. Maybe.

[Walsingham]

I have no doubt that the Sunnis and the Shiites can come to a peaceful agreement... Eventually.

 

I wish I could agree with that. But after hundreds of years of bitter hatred there will only be peace when one or the other is wiped out.

 

You mean the way the Scots, Welsh and English have? Don't forget that for hundreds of years we were pretty much the same. The damn Scots kept trying to give England to the French!

[Hildegard]

The only ones getting desperate is the loosing side...and it ain't Al Qaeda, it's the occupation forces.

[Hurlshort]

Islam is about 500 years younger than Christianity. 500 years ago, Catholics and Protestants were killing each other all over Europe.

[Walsingham]

The only ones getting desperate is the loosing side...and it ain't Al Qaeda, it's the occupation forces.

 

Hello Hilde. Haven't noticed you in a while. My point was not that the Coalition isn't getting desperate. My point was that we aren't the only ones. Moreover that it's a mistake to assume that any opponent is superhuman and invulnerable no matter what you do or what happens.

[Hildegard]

The only ones getting desperate is the loosing side...and it ain't Al Qaeda, it's the occupation forces.

 

Hello Hilde. Haven't noticed you in a while. My point was not that the Coalition isn't getting desperate. My point was that we aren't the only ones. Moreover that it's a mistake to assume that any opponent is superhuman and invulnerable no matter what you do or what happens.

 

 

Maybe so...but in Iraq you have the occupation forces, Iraqi army and police, Shii'a extremists, Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda, former Saddam loyalists and bunch of other Islamic extremists and interest groups...the only thing that isn't getting desperate or lower in magnitude is the level of violence.

 

*College and work kicked in so I don't have much time to be around....but when the war with Iran starts I'll be here

Edited June 17, 2007 by Hildegard

[Walsingham]

Please don't wait until there's war with Iran. It's not going to happen! Even if there was a spare reserve of treasure and troops there would be no point.

 

As for any argument that says Iraq can't achieve peace... I choose to believe that such negativity is nonsense. Where there is sufficient strategic determination anything is possible.

[DeathScepter]

Personally if there is anything within Iran, it will be from within Iran and not from without. Also the Intelligence community within The U.S. and their allies will assist the annoyed people of Iran to become a stronger place.

 

 

 

From what I have heard, The people of Iran are not too happy with their leader and I do think with agents at key places will help move it along.

[Sand]

The people of Iran has as much love for their president as the US people have for theirs.

[Volourn]

"The people of Iran has as much love for their president as the US people have for theirs."

 

The difference being, of course, that many potential Iranian presidents were canceled out by the TRUE Iranian leader as being 'unsuitable', and the US people were able to vote for who they want in a more or elss fair 9albeit, not without problems) election.

 

Remember, the Prez of Iran doens't have the real, ultimate power. He's either a figurehead or so handicapped he's sueless (ie. the former Iranian President who actually wans't that bad of a guy from what was told).

 

I mean, at least he didn't try to claim that Isreal should be wiped out, the Holocaust shouldn't happen, and actually tried to improve the Iranian's people lives.

 

It's also no wonder that Iran wasn't getting bashed as much under him either from the rest of the world .. or Iranians.

Edited June 19, 2007 by Volourn

[Sand]

That is the problems living in a theocracy, Volourn. That is why I am always for a secular government and a complete separation of church and state. Religion needs to stay out of the affairs of state.

[Walsingham]

*buzzer*

 

You're dragging the religion debate in here, then? My answer is the same. Political leadership that uses religion to replace the democratic mandate is obviously nothing better than a dictatorship. However, equally, a moral government requires a degree of intangible ever-present oversight that the people cannot provide. This is why they need some religious/mystical inspiration.

 

And having friends who are Iranian, an having tracked the sitaution there as one of my top ten, I feel confident saying that there is a lot of unrest within Iran. nor are they being quietly restless. There are many groups and persons working against the ayatollahs. However, the greatest danger at present is not so much the ayatollahs, as the unelected and corrupt officials in the Revolutionary Guards and other paramilitary organisations. If the people move too fast against the ayatollahs (who are not uniformly bad) then they may miss the NEXT dictatorship, which would be military. My hope is that they will move sufficiently slowly to permit good ayatollahs to remain afloat, inducing change gradually.

 

Do not forget that Iran, too is due for a humbling experience in Iraq. They believe they can do there what they have always done in Afghanistan. Keep it docile by proxy groups weakening the state. But a meltdown in Iraq will not leave them untouched.

[Guard Dog]

That is the problems living in a theocracy, Volourn. That is why I am always for a secular government and a complete separation of church and state. Religion needs to stay out of the affairs of state.

 

Here we go again.... It always astonishes me that you can look at Iran and think "Uh-oh if we elect another christian that will happen here" I already know you have no faith in your country, but I am always amazed at how little faith you have in Americans as a people.

[Sand]

Here we go again.... It always astonishes me that you can look at Iran and think "Uh-oh if we elect another christian that will happen here" I already know you have no faith in your country, but I am always amazed at how little faith you have in Americans as a people.

Well, I look at such organizations such as the Christian Coalition and the Moral Majority, and how much influence they have on policy, which is very strong. Also I don't have faith in anything. May it be in some God, in people, or even myself. In the end, it is useless.

[Walsingham]

Losing faith in onself is a private prerogative. Losing faith in others is just rude.