Apr 17 2008
All al-Qaeda Has Left Is Muslim Bloodshed And Hope Liberals Will Surrender
It really has become grossly pathetic that the liberals in the West have aligned their political fortunes with Bin Laden’s Islamo Fascist thugs – but the choice was theirs to make. al-Qaeda is not able to defeat the US-Iraq alliance any more. They acknowledge that in their communiques, and it is a sign of how desperate times have become for AQ. All they can do now is massacre muslims and pray the liberals in the West can convince the governments of the West to give the terrorists one last chance to survive:
The letter to insurgent leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri read almost like a corporate strategy memo. Apparently written by one of al-Masri’s lieutenants, the missive captured by U.S. forces argues that al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) must work to sow disunity among the thousands of Sunni fighters who’ve turned against the insurgency and now work with the Americans. Iraq’s economy must be hobbled and its oil and gas fields and electrical infrastructure attacked, urges the insurgent strategist who signs his name as Abu Safyan from Diyala. “We must always leave the economy in psychological conflict,” Safyan wrote. “They can never have stability, so that they keep busy with themselves and not be able to unite against us.”
…
“This document is just one man’s articulation, one terrorist’s views about instigating conflict and turning Iraqis against each other,” Bergner told reporters in Baghdad. “But it is also quite consistent with the patterns of violence we see from AQI.”
Indeed, those patterns were visible Tuesday, when suicide bombers left dozens dead in Ramadi and Baqubah, the capital of Diyala Province. Bergner said the military was still trying to determine whether the planning of those strikes was connected — which would indicate that insurgents still maintained a national network capable of tactical coordination.
The SurrenderMedia continues to do the work of the terrorist butchers by using these massacres as some kind of evidence Islam will return to seeing al-Qaeda as their future. But the reality of the message is many in Islam are seeing al-Qaeda as their enemy, not their future, and are rising up against the Islamo Fascists. The Arab street in Iraq looks to the US-Iraqi security forces for protection. The Arab street in Iraq has taken up arms against al-Qaeda, not the US. The Arab street in Iraq is now the designated enemy of al-Qaeda.
And that is how you defeat a movement like al-Qaeda. You strip them of their popular support and show them to be the enemy of the very people they want to lead. What al-Qaeda is saying is they have no choice now but to wage war on fellow Muslims or else they will be defeated. This is clear in the statement “They [Iraq Muslims] can never have stability, so that they keep busy with themselves and not be able to unite against us.” al-Qaeda is desperate. They are near the end, or else they would not have to take such extreme measures. They are being hunted by Iraq’s Muslims and are lashing out for survival. A survival that now only fools in the West can offer them.
As General William Odom has stated throughout the failed war, (while fools like Strata, and Paul Bremer and Rumsfeld were predicting the immediate demise of the “dead-enders”) , the American occupation only fuels violence and only US troop exit will enable the Iraqis themselves to expel foreign jihadists.
Not wishing to admit his error, Strata props up a straw man MSM, (which has never advocated withdrawal or cutting off funding for the war, incidentially, because as part of the ruling elite, it supports it)
as depicting an Iraqi population which “sees AQ as its future,” which
of course the MSM does not do either but which Strata scaremongers the probability thereof if the troops are brought home.
What transparent blunder and deception combined.
What transparent blunder and deception combined.
But enough about you already.
“the liberals in the West have aligned their political fortunes with Bin Laden’s Islamo Fascist thugs” – Well stated, AJ!
T2T,
Your “transparent”sophistry and wishful thinking combined don’t comport with the facts or the willof the Iraqi people who,by surveys, indicate a desire for us to guarantee their safety.
The MSM has undermined this War from the get go.The words “ruling elite” are enough to gag. It is the controlling news source for the lowest intellectual quantile but its “elite” status is only in its own mind.
I always do enjoy Truth’s posts. The lack of logic and understanding are breathtaking. This one unfortunately has little meat on it, though.
First, we see that Truth is an afficiado of General Odom. Truth seems to think that we should take, as the definitive commentator, the good General over all others. Even though General Odom has not been close to the situation at all, it is Truth’s opinion we should ignore General Petraeus, for example, and focus on General Odom pronouncements from on high. Truth does not tell us why we should do that. Truth also offers no support for his claim that a withdrawal will end the violence in Iraq. I suppose Truth believes the militias and Al Qaeda will lay down their arms and peacefully assemble. Why he thinks that, he does not say.
Then, Truth, would have us believe that the MSM, being a part or the ruling elite, supports the war in Iraq. Now, one could only come to that conclusion if he were not to actually read or listen to the MSM. Perhaps, we should introduce him to the Hew York Times, the LA Times, and, maybe, ABC News. No serious person could conclude these MSM outlets support the war in Iraq. Why ever does Truth claim they do?
Finally, Truth correctly notes the MSM do not support Al Qaeda as the future of Iraq, but their actual calls for withdrawal and an end to the US presence in Iraq could well have that consequence. Truth seems unwilling to look at consequences in favor of his belief we should withdraw. That is the thinking of a two year old.
“…MSM, (which has never advocated withdrawal or cutting off funding for the war, incidentially, because as part of the ruling elite, it supports it)”
Like I said, folks…Truthy’s a gas with every post. I don’t understand why he stays here in this forum. He’d be a star over at Kos, DU, or Huffpo. Here’s just entertainment…a dog chasing his own tail…or a cat chasing a flashlight spot on the wall. 😉
http://www.counterpunch.org/lind04172008.html
First Conservative strategist Lind proves Iraq has no government.
As to Rick C’s illogic, Petraues is a lackey who replaced a non-lackey retired because he wouldn’t follow Bush’s quagmired surge. Odom has been right about the war’s unwinnability and un-plannned on insurgency before it even started. Enough reason.
Secondly I never claimed violence would disappear after we left, only that the Iraqis could eradicate foreign jihadists more quickly than we could. Our staying only delays whatever other violence might
follow, it does not prevent it.
If the ruling elite MSM opposed the war it would advocate Congress withhold funds, which Strata in one of his rare truth-telling modes
correctly depicted as the only way to effectively end the war when he was ,again correctly,chiding the Democrats on their hypocrisy.
But the MSM has not.
http://www.counterpunch.org/lind04172008.html
Conservative Lind shows there is no real Iraqi government.
Basra proved it.
General Odom has been right about the war since before it started.
Petraeus is a lackey who replaced an officer who wouldn’t accede to the surge continuing the quagmire.
I said the Iraqis could eradicate foreign jihadists faster than the inept US troops who added to their presence: I did not claim the violence was going to suddenly disappear. America caused whatever violence will ensue after it leaves.
Get your ass over there 75, and let’s hope the insurgency deals with it pronto.
Rick C
Odom predicted an insurgency and a quagmire with inadequate troops before the war. Petreaeus is a lackey who replaced another officer who refused to go along with the farce of the surge. That’s why. And you’re a little slow. I never claimed there would be no violence after occupiers left. Only that Iraqis could eradicate foreign al Qaeda more effeciently that the occupier can. Whatever other violence ensues America set in motion by its immoral invasion.
t2t,
So, the freely elected Iraqi government can”eradicate al Qaeda” where the Iraqi people couldn’t prior to our “immoral invasion?” I guess Bush made it possible?
Are you incapable of comprehending the thrust of your argument?
Here is the quote from Genral Odom “Bush hasn’t found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it’s worse, he’s lost on that front. That he’s going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It’s lost.” He adds: “Right now, the course we’re on, we’re achieving Bin Laden’s ends.”
Now, we have a democracy in Iraq. The question is can it be kept. Al Qaeda in Iraq is in disarray as AJ has pointed out. So, at this point General Odom seems to be wrong, but you want to hang on to his words. Would that make you a “dead-ender”?
Violence: to quote you “the American occupation only fuels violence”. So, it is not outrageous to interpret that as indicating you believe there would be less violence if the US were to withdraw. By any token, removing fuel from the fire quells the fire. Perhaps it you who is a little slow since you don’t follow the meaning of your own words.
Immediate past events have shown that the US help via the surge has allowed the Sunni and now the Shia to begin to expel Al Qaeda and the Al Sadr militia. So, perhaps you would make an argument to support your claim that the “Iraqis could eradicate foreign al Qaeda more effeciently that the occupier can”. On what do you base that claim.
Of course, I await your defense of Petraeus as lackey. If it is your opinion that what Petraeus has achieved is that of a lackey, then anyone who accomplishes what his boss asks, is merely a lackey. That is a somewhat difficult position to defend, indeed. Please have at it. I am really interested in your defense of the statement.
Odom in many ways is similiar to the Democrats. He has staked his reputation on failure in Iraq. It’s only natural that he would hold onto his own vision for as long as he can. No one on the left likes to admit they are wrong, and they always are. Why would Odom be any different? Check out his bio…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Eldridge_Odom
Truthy,
General Odom retired from active duty two decades ago.
Two decades Truthy.
That’s twenty years ago.
You were probably a gleam in some Poli-Scie Professor’s eye at the time. Maybe you were a late blooming gleam in Poli-Scie Professor Odom’s eye in 1989 or 1990.
His specialty was the Soviet Union. Not much to yak about there.
And, he is even older than John McCain!
Look at his biography Truthy. If he was a Marine officer he would have never made it past Major at the most. He never served in a combat unit. He was a policy and plans wonk.
General Odom spoke up against the Iraq Theater of the GWOT in 2005 – two years after the conflict there began. How is the prescient?
Conservative Lind
Anyone who calls Lind a “conservative” is, to put it blunty, not paying attention. The man has never been conservative, unless you count “give America’s enemies what they want and maybe they’ll leave us alone” as conservative.
The man has always been infatuated with all things Soviet. During his time as a so-called “frugal hawk,” Lind demanded the return of the draft, and a “strategy” built around massive numbers of (extremely cheap and easily killed) tanks and armored personnel carriers. If necessary, the Navy was to be cut to the bone and beyond, in order to fund his “strategic vision.” (Incidentally, I actually told him to his face that “vision” and “hallucination” were synonymous. He didn’t like it.)
Quite simply, he wanted the US military to become a mirror image of the Red Army. How “conservative.”
In the 1980s, He flat-out told the Marine Corps that the best way for them to use their LAV-25s (wheeled, thin-skinned vehicles) was as a half-assed Operational Maneuver Group (again, taken straight from Soviet doctrine). Now, that might have worked in the early phases of World War II. It was never going to work in an era where the second most common threat weapon was the RPG-7. (The most common, of course, was the AK-47–the spatha of the proletarian revolution’s legions.)
Lind liked to brag that he was the man behind Fleet Marine Force Manual 1, “Warfighting.” Actually, the credit for FMFM-1 g0es to a retired Air Force bird colonel named John Boyd. Lind’s main talent was knowing who to hang around and when to run away before he got swatted like a bug for annoying the grown-ups.
RickC,
I’m impressed…
Truthy,
You really ought to read the biographies of your sources.
You quote a General who has never lifted a weapon.
You quote a ‘conservative’ Lind – an aide to Democratic Senator Gary Hart.
‘conservative’ Lind is the ‘Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism’. The ‘Center for Cultural Conservatism’:
“supports setting up independent parallel institutions with a right to secession and a highly decentralized nature that would rely on individual responsibility and discipline to remain intact, but would prevent the takeover of the institutions by those hostile to cultural conservatism’s ideals.”
A comment from Thomas Ricks:
“Lind has been criticized by writer Thomas E. Ricks in an The Atlantic Monthly magazine article “The Widening Gap Between the Military and Society” where Ricks asserts that Lind’s rhetoric differs from what Ricks calls “standard right-wing American rhetoric of the ’90s” because Lind suggests that the U.S. military may assault Americans. Ricks quotes Lind, ‘The next real war we fight is likely to be on American soil.'”
He is and was a moonbat – or a wingnut.
Who cares which.
Is this someone you really listen too?
Good luck and good night…
I don’t want to enter the general surrender argument,
but the subjext of those WMDs not being found
was raised again.
Debka-Net-Weekly, which the subscription arm of debka,
(you have to pay to read the intel) is insisting this week
that the President has known all along where the WMDs
were taken, namely that they were spirited out of Iraq
while the UN and France delayed our starting the invasion
and are stashed away in Syria.
According to Debka, the President decided they could
not be safely bombed in place and chose not to pursue
them. This may be an error, politically and militarily.
There are nerve weapons, biological weapons, and
radiological material just waiting to be used.
If war breaks out this summer between Israel, Syria, and Iran,
which looks very likely indeed, we may soon enough discover
where Saddam’s weapons went and the public will then know
too.
But that statement that the WMDs were never found is incorrect.
They are found but have neither been disclosed nor attacked.
This administration is its own worst enemy because it does nothing to counter the myths that have been allowed to developed.
Some of the myths are
– No WMD were found in Iraq
– Iraq had no connections with Al Qaeda
I am thankfull for MAJ General Odom’s service. He was a fine Cold Warrior and served well in the NSA till 1988. Many of his generation are dismayed at what has happened to their Cold War era military. It has become smaller, faster, lighter, more intelligent and is not the ponderous Goliath Sledgehammer it was. This dramatic transformation has left many Generals feeling left out as they could not or would not adjust. Rumsfeld made many enemies in accelerating the transformation. You could make an argument that in transforming the Army to what it is today Rumsfeld bypassed the current war which evolved into an Urban conflict against well armed gangs. I think at best it is a poor argument but go ahead it might be interresting.
Clearly Odom had other ideas of how to fight a war with Islamo-fascists and it didn’t include direct action. This should be no surprise given his historical record but for him to say the effort was a failure before it even commenced smells of arrogance or bitterness. Bitterness, of course, is just petty, but arrogance can be a useful tool in a General (Patton, MacArthur) but it wouldn’t appear to be a strength in a man who spent his entire career in study rather than combat.
Impressed with Rick C? Don’t be.
“Now, we have a democracy in Iraq.”
Not according to the Iraqi people who poll as losing faith in the government when it failed to restore order and reflected in the mass Sunni walkout, the ethnic slate rather than individual voting, and the
fact over half the elected officials live outside Iraq now or cannot be mustered to pass legislation.
Let me re-state the violence issue slowly.
America is fueling the overall violence by its presence and that
includes whatever violence eventually proceeds after it leaves.
I did not claim the current Iraqi government could squash
foreign al Qaeda faster than US troops. I said the Iraq people
as a whole will take action inclusive of forming an effective government which will then squash foreign jihadists faster than
they will if and while American troops stay and hence impede Iraqis’ progress while failing on the American troops’ own account.
This is both because American troops’ presence gives more incentive for jihadists to organize and fight, and because there are not adequate US troops nor skill to crush the jihadists.