Iraqi al-Qaida Leader Arrested
What? You mean we’re fighting al-Qaida in Iraq? Huh. Who knew?
The highest-ranking Iraqi leader of al-Qaida in Iraq has been arrested and told interrogators that Osama bin Laden’s inner circle wields considerable influence over the Iraqi group, the U.S. command said Wednesday.
Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, who was captured in Mosul on July 4, carried messages from bin Laden, and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri, to the Egyptian-born head of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Ayub al-Masri, said Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, a military spokesman.“Communication between the senior al-Qaida leadership and al-Masri frequently went through al-Mashhadani,” Bergner said. “There is a clear connection between al-Qaida in Iraq and al-Qaida senior leadership outside Iraq.”
Please spare us, Owen! It’s bad enough to have McBride sprew the “Al Qaeda in Iraq” drivel on a regular basis. I gave you more credit.
Here’s what the NY Times said today, in discussing the new National Intelligence Estimate:
But the new estimate takes note of sources of worry that have arisen only since 2001. The Iraq war has spawned Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as the “most visible and capable affiliate” of the original terrorist group, inspiring jihadists around the world and drawing money and recruits to their cause.
If Al Qaeda is in Iraq, in other words, it is because we were there first. They were not in Iraq when the US invaded. And Al Qaeda in Iraq, or Al Qaeda in Mespotamia, is not the same Al Qaeda that struck on 9/11, as you well know.
Even the story you cited said this:
Some independent analysts question the extent of al-Qaida’s role in Iraq… subject of debate. Some private analysts believe the foreign-based leadership plays a minor role in day-to-day operations.
Analysts have also questioned U.S. military assertions that al-Qaida in Iraq is the main threat to U.S. forces here.
Former Pentagon analyst Anthony Cordesman quoted a background brief by U.S. military experts in Iraq this month that said al-Qaida in Iraq was responsible for only 15 percent of the attacks here in the first half of 2007.
You’re trying to help the Bush administration prop up this disastrous war. The people are smarter than that, and the 52 votes in the Senate today will be 60 soon.
Posted by xoff on July 18, 2007 at 1820 hrs
So xoff… since you are so fond of surrender… what is your “exit strategy?” Should the US take any action if Iraq descends into a genocide after we leave? What if Iran sends its tanks over the border and annexes the Shiite regions and land-locks the remainder of Iraq?
Anything? We can debate the reasons for the war all day, but right now we are there. Whatever we do will have consequences. Have you even considered what those consequences might be?
Posted by Owen on July 18, 2007 at 1825 hrs
Perhaps if we set some deadlines for staging withdrawal the Iraqi government and others in the region would get serious about solving their political problems instead of going on vacation.
I have noticed how in the past few months the media has been referring to “al Qaeda fighters” and so on whenever anyone hears a stray bullet in Iraq. I think we all know that if al Qaeda was the real problem in Iraq we could leave next week. No, the problem is that there is a power struggle going on between Iraqis over power and resources. And to the extent that there are al Qaeda sympathizers and copycats present they are there precisely because we screwed up the country so badly and let them in to target our troops.
Since we are there, Owen, what’s your strategy? Another troop surge? The problems there are political and you know it.
Posted by scott on July 18, 2007 at 1917 hrs
I think you’re fooling yourself if you think that AQ isn’t a day-to-day enemy of our troops on the ground.
There are political problems there too, but by and large where AQ goes, death follows.
Don’t fall into the MSM trap of gleefully declaring that the misnomered “surge” is a failure when it has, in fact, been massively successful given its relatively short time frame of full operational status. In case you’re keeping track, the surge didn’t begin until 6/19…less than a month ago. Prior to that time forces in Baghdad were biding their time, something the counterinsurgency strategists were calling a “defensive crouch,” waiting for enough boots on the ground to engage AQ in such a way that we leave them no way to retreat or escape.
Prior to the surge we were largely playing whack-a-mole. Now its whack-a-mole, fill-a-hole, as Dafydd at Big Lizards put it.
Anyway, the real exit strategy here is to control Baghdad, continue to mop up AQ operatives and continue to engage the population of Iraq to fight AQ rather than us and themselves.
The instant the local government (meaning politicians, police forces, and army forces) is perceived as “legitimate” in Iraq the war will be won. The only thing that can prevent that is AQ. The only thing that can enable it is our sustained presence in the region.
If you’re interested in educating yourself beyond the fluff defeatist articles you find in the MSM I have posted on the situation in Iraq and the Surge for quite some time. Enjoy.
Posted by k2aggie07 on July 18, 2007 at 1941 hrs
“Anyway, the real exit strategy here is to control Baghdad, continue to mop up AQ operatives and continue to engage the population of Iraq to fight AQ rather than us and themselves.
“The instant the local government (meaning politicians, police forces, and army forces) is perceived as “legitimate” in Iraq the war will be won. The only thing that can prevent that is AQ. The only thing that can enable it is our sustained presence in the region.”
Excuse me, but huh?
It’s hard to know where to start with so much utter nonsense, but how about this: all of the evidence of the last several years suggests that any segment of the Iraqi population choosing to “engage” with US forces typically ends up dying a very nasty death. That’s why Iraqis “engage” with whoever is going to keep them alive. And with a weak political leadership, it’s only the Sunni and Shia militias who can provide such protection.
Plus, few Iraqis want to “engage” with troops they hold responsible for the deaths of so many innocent civilians. (Yes, you read that right—I’m not a “we all have to accept a little collateral damage” guy. Those deaths are why this invasion was and continues to be immoral.) Maybe if our forces had been replaced with UN troops or troops from neutral countries shortly after the invasion, we could have had more engagement—maybe even a marriage. But, no, we had to go it alone.
You’re not really describing a strategy anyway, just tactics. But I’ll play along. What cost are you willing to pay? How many more dead troops should we expect during our “sustained presence”? Is 5,000 okay? 10,000? How many more billions should we spend?
Eventually, I believe, we will all come to realize that Harry Reid is right—the war is lost. It’s lost because the only thing the Bush team brought to this enterprise was shooting people. There was no plan for anything beyond that. The impact of this blunder will be colossal. Iran will emerge as a major power in the region. Israel will be weakened. The ability of the Unites States to affect conditions in the Mid East is gone—maybe for a generation or more. I only hope that Americans will be smart enough to make Republicans pay for it at the ballot box for as long.
Posted by Michael Mathias on July 18, 2007 at 2250 hrs
Funny, we had heard about Bin Laden “dead or alive” from our cowboy president five years ago and now we are back to the good old days where numbnutz would wave around the bloody shirt with the word Al Qaeda written on it when ever trouble for his band of crooks is brewin’.
Five years ago. In that amount of time FDR and the Allies defeated two of the most fearsome armies ever. In five years Bush hasn’t been able to secure the road from the airport to Baghdad
Owen, if Iran charges into Iraq after we leave that will be their mistake as war games at the Pentagon predict (I’ll bet the military is far better at fortune telling than the Bush administration has been in Iraq so far). It also predicts that Iraq will split into the three parts that we should have made provision for in the first place.
The thing you conveniently or ignorantly overlook is that an overwhelming number of insurgents are domestic fighters, and they are in it simultaneously to fight off sectarian militias from the other other side and to eject us.
Al Maliki said as much last last week, but I’m sure some whispers from this gangster administration reminded the Iraqi leader how he could so easily be killed and it would be blamed on insurrectionists.
For someone who is confident that democracy can be brought to this country by an administration who has no idea how the concept works—or doesn’t want to know—give the Iraqis some credit. They don’t want any outside interference like we did when we threw off the British 230 years ago. The for some reason don’t like soldiers bursting into their houses, their kids being run over by our tanks or being part of a round up and heading off to some torture prison run by us. That means expelling not only us but Al Qaeda and Iran as well.
The sad part is that no matter what happens plenty of blood gets spilled either way, thanks to the mess Bush caused. I’m into history but with Iraq and Katrina I am having trouble coming up with a president who has been responsible for so many needless deaths.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 18, 2007 at 2255 hrs
What is my exit strategy?
It seems to me, Owen, that you should have asked George Bush that question several years ago.
Posted by xoff on July 19, 2007 at 0909 hrs
“AQ” is a day-to-day enemy in Iraq? I’m sure it is. But I remember quite clearly hearing statistics about what percentage of the non-coalition armed combatants in Iraq were foreign terrorists (and even that doesn’t necessarily imply that they’re “AQ”). I forget the exact number, but it was small. It led me immediately to the conclusion I still hold today regarding their presence in Iraq: if they were suddenly to become the only one’s there holding guns we could pack our shit and leave next week. The Iraqis themselves could deal with them handily.
Alas, they aren’t the only one’s waiving guns in Iraq. There are other much larger groups doing so. Native Iraqis of one sect and another, going at each other in a war over political power and resources. AQ is merely exploiting the chaos and take potshots at our troops.
So if anyone wants to paint the Iraq war as simply “us versus al Qaeda” I say: bullshit.
Posted by scott on July 19, 2007 at 0922 hrs
Five years ago. In that amount of time FDR and the Allies defeated two of the most fearsome armies ever. In five years Bush hasn’t been able to secure the road from the airport to Baghdad.
The ignorance of this statement is telling. If you want wars to compare to, the French occupation of Algeria is much closer to the mark than World War II. You’re not even doing apples to oranges because both of those are at least fruits…its more like peanuts to popsicles.
Alas, they aren’t the only one’s waiving guns in Iraq. There are other much larger groups doing so. Native Iraqis of one sect and another, going at each other in a war over political power and resources. AQ is merely exploiting the chaos and take potshots at our troops.
So, you mean the Sadr militia? Because that’s pretty much us fighting Iran. And you think its a bad thing that we’re currently engaged in a military arms race with a country that is openly hostile to us and our allies? Especially given that its a fight that we most assuredly can and will win?I think the position of our troops in Iraq during the Israel-Hezbollah fight last year was an immediate, verifiable benefit to the security in that region.
The sad part is that no matter what happens plenty of blood gets spilled either way, thanks to the mess Bush caused. I’m into history but with Iraq and Katrina I am having trouble coming up with a president who has been responsible for so many needless deaths.
This, too, is an idiotic statement. Firstly, plenty of blood was getting spilled before we ever showed up in Baghdad. Saddam was murdering millions of his own people. That goes doubly to the other poster who implied, somehow, that Americans kill innocent civilians. Bringing up Katrina just shows how truly stupid or willfully (politically self-inflicted) ignorant you are. Take your pick, its one or the other. If you’re “into history” you can look up plenty of other presidents who have fought popular or unpopular wars—some with less reason or casus belli than Iraq. As a history buff surely you’ll be able to tell me—1892-1902 is a good one to look at.So, like I said. Jump off the gloom’n'doom bandwagon that Harry Reid feeds you. Go read what the troops on the ground say. Go read what the nonpolitical counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. Patraeus says. Or Michael Yon, who has been “tell it like it is” since he got there.
The truth is, Bush made mistakes. Or, I should say, his administration (including the Pentagon) made mistakes. We misgauged Saddam, did not expect his army to disintegrate. But now we have the means to fix it, and the stakes are incredibly high. If we can end up with a pre-Bill Clinton Pakistan in the middle East, a moderate, democratic Islamic state, we will have done something truly great.
So is it worth 3,500 American lives? I don’t know; I don’t keep tallys on things like that. But it becomes apparent that there is a double standard when it comes to war. Fighting the specter of communism we sacrificed 37,000 and 58,000 in Korea and Vietnam, respectively. Can anyone here truly say that the threat from militant Islam is any less severe?
Posted by k2aggie07 on July 19, 2007 at 0940 hrs
the Sadr militia? Because that’s pretty much us fighting Iran.
No, it’s “pretty much” like fighting Iraqi Shi’a who, as I said, are vying for control of Iraq and its resources. The fact that Sadr wants to implement an Iranian-style theocracy is beside the point. But what’s the difference anyway? Either way you slice it, they aren’t al Qaeda, not responsible for 9/11, and not “the terrorists” that the Global War On Terror is purportedly trying to get at; they’re Iraqis who are fighting other Iraqis over domestic politics.
We misgauged Saddam, did not expect his army to disintegrate.
I think it was we who dissolved the Iraqi army. That is, I think, regarded now as one of the earliest and worst mistakes of the entire misadventure.
But now we have the means to fix it,
I doubt it. I think the one’s capable of fixing this are the Iraqis. They will either negotiate themselves to political stability or they will not. We can and must do all we can to facilitate this process, but we cannot do it. Certainly not with military force.
Posted by scott on July 19, 2007 at 0955 hrs
k2
specter of communism
And what exactly did we get for 58,000 lives in Vietnam?
If we can end up with a pre-Bill Clinton Pakistan in the middle East, a moderate, democratic Islamic state,
You are dreaming!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2007 at 0955 hrs
The Sadr militia is as non-Iranian as Hezbollah is. They have the same golden fishhook in their mouths—the support of Iran. They may be Iraqi born but they’re loyal to their Iranian masters, as is Sadr. Note where he fled when the going got tough. Besides, the Sadr militia is a non-entity in the political struggle at this point. Sadr wrote himself out the equation long ago.
Fighting foreign backed terrorists in Iraq, whatever their nation of origin, is fighting the GWOT.
I don’t know why everyone seems to think that Islam and true political and diplomatic legitimacy can’t coincide. I, for one, am not willing to write off the Iraqis as backwards, stupid people. If Iran can (and could) support a western, progressive government, so can Iraq.
Now scott, you’re right that the progressive changes in Iraq are rooted in the Iraqis. However, these changes can not and will not happen in a power vacuum. Wherever we are not, AQ is. Thats been the norm from Fallujah to Buqaba to Anbar. Its just the nature of the game. They key to winning here is “covering” Iraq until they can cover themselves, something the prime minister mentioned just a few days ago.
Posted by k2aggie07 on July 19, 2007 at 1126 hrs
PS
pjr, one could argue that our detente policy (and Vietnam, by extension) was incredibly effective. Vietnam was one battle on a global front to contain communism. The fact that Johnson and others in Washington essentially lost the war for us for political gain at home is, if anything, a lesson to continue in Iraq, not quit.
Posted by k2aggie07 on July 19, 2007 at 1129 hrs
hanges in Iraq are rooted in the Iraqis. However, these changes can not and will not happen in a power vacuum.
They aren’t happening at all, that’s the problem. You might say political progress cannot happen without security. You might also say that the fighting will not stop until political progress is made. Chicken/egg. But one thing is certain: our insistence that we’re going to solve the problem militarily is completely idiotic. Am I for or against the surge? I’m completely neutral on it. As a part of a large and meaningful diplomatic and political effort, I’m for it. By itself, I don’t see what good it can possibly do long-term.
They key to winning here is “covering” Iraq until they can cover themselves
So you think we can quell the violence between Iraqi sects* long enough for the political leaders of those sects to resolve their differences. Given the fact that said leaders have not shown much initiative in this area, I’m not too optimistic. Even if we can “cover” Iraq (how many more troops will that take??), it’s all for naught if the political issues aren’t faced aggressively - and that’s not happening.
* You refer to AQ here as if they’re the main problem in Iraq. They are not. As i’ve said many times before, if they were the only people perpetrating violence in Iraq we could pack up and leave in a week. The majority of the problem there is Iraqi sectarian violence; violence that could only be stopped long-term by political and diplomatic efforts.
Posted by scott on July 19, 2007 at 1136 hrs
I guess its just a difference of opinion then. I’d like to think its due to a difference in the level of information we receive.
I think, honestly, that the infighting occurring in Iraq has much more to do with Iran vs US than Sunni vs Shia. It is interesting to note, however, that Sunni tribes in Anbar have risen up to fight against their fellow Sunnis (AQ) due to the level of violence imposed by AQI forces.
If the divide between irhabists (terrorists) and peaceful citizens is greater than the rifts between Sunni and Shia, we win.
Posted by k2aggie07 on July 19, 2007 at 1819 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 111
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 05:57 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).