Ex-allies 'fight al-Qaeda in Iraq'

[wilberhum]

Well, contrary to what many believe, the majority of Americans understand that Islamic extremism is an enemy of our way of life. The question is what to do about it. There are many, and I'm one of them, who believes the War in Iraq is a distraction from the real struggle, which is in Afghanistan and those local extremists in Europe and the U.S.

I'm one of those in that majority. The war in Iraq is wrong and never should have happened.

Afghanistan had to happen. OBL declare war on the US and attacked us on several occasion and the Taliban were his protectors.

 

[snakelegs]

in my opinion everything we have done in the name of "fighting extremism" "war on terror" etc etc has done nothing but make everything worse. we couldn't have done more to fuel it if we had a conscious agenda to do so.

 

[Keltoi]

in my opinion everything we have done in the name of "fighting extremism" "war on terror" etc etc has done nothing but make everything worse. we couldn't have done more to fuel it if we had a conscious agenda to do so.

So what would have been the appropriate response to 9-11?

 

[snakelegs]

So what would have been the appropriate response to 9-11?

the truth? i don't know. but somehow i don't think daisy cutters, depleted uranium and all the other stuff we have done in afghanistan has done any good, do you? what have we achieved besides more enemies?
sure we got the talibaan out for awhile - but they are making a comeback.
everything we have done since has made a bad situation infinitely worse in my opinion.

 

[Keltoi]

the truth? i don't know. but somehow i don't think daisy cutters, depleted uranium and all the other stuff we have done in afghanistan has done any good, do you? what have we achieved besides more enemies?
sure we got the talibaan out for awhile - but they are making a comeback.
everything we have done since has made a bad situation infinitely worse in my opinion.

We stopped Afghanistan from being a safe haven for Al-Qaeda, which was the primary objective. As for Afghanistan being worse that it was under the Taliban...I don't buy that for a second. Of course it is still a dangerous place, especially for school teachers and truck drivers, but I think the main problem there is opium production and the corruption it brings to the Afghan government; and of course the warlord phenomenon.

That being said, of course there were many mistakes made in the whole "War on Terror", but I think the price of doing nothing would have been much worse.

 

[snakelegs]

We stopped Afghanistan from being a safe haven for Al-Qaeda, which was the primary objective. As for Afghanistan being worse that it was under the Taliban...I don't buy that for a second. Of course it is still a dangerous place, especially for school teachers and truck drivers, but I think the main problem there is opium production and the corruption it brings to the Afghan government; and of course the warlord phenomenon.

That being said, of course there were many mistakes made in the whole "War on Terror", but I think the price of doing nothing would have been much worse.

well, we agree on one thing - opium is the curse of afghanistan, regardless of regime.
i didn't say afghanistan was worse than it was under the talibaan - just that we did not defeat them - they are making quite a comeback and the country is sinking in to lawlessness.
as for al-qaeda....now they are in iraq, where they were not before.
we have hundreds of times more enemies than we had on 9/11.

 

[MTAFFI]

well, we agree on one thing - opium is the curse of afghanistan, regardless of regime.
i didn't say afghanistan was worse than it was under the talibaan - just that we did not defeat them - they are making quite a comeback and the country is sinking in to lawlessness.
as for al-qaeda....now they are in iraq, where they were not before.
we have hundreds of times more enemies than we had on 9/11.

yes but Iraq is improving and right now, for whatever reason (probably that Bush appears to be more and more of a bumbling ignoramous), our troops arent as commited to Afghanistan. Imagine when a flood of 100,000 troops goes to Afghan, do you think the Taliban will fair so well then? And what are they really accomplishing right now? Yes they have control of some areas, yes some days they gain ground, but others they lose it. They are simply contained right now, they arent being destroyed but they arent making any significant progress either. Watch what happens around mid spring of '08 Afghanistan will become a priority as troop levels decrease in Iraq, it is only logical, Afghanistan is the head and to ultimately solve the problem it must be cut off, the Taliban has quite a fight ahead of them and I believe they will lose.

 

[Keltoi]

Yes, the U.S. isn't that concerned with Afghanistan right now, and for obvious reasons. However, when the troop committment in Iraq goes down, which it will soon, Afghanistan will become more of a focus.

 

[Omar_Mukhtar]

Strange and Ironic indeed!. The Yanks spent five years fighting the Sunnis of Iraq, only to go back to were they started. In other words, they realised Sunni Tribes and former Saddam Allies are better friends for Americans than millitant others to combat Iran and the spread of Alqaeda. The allies who are now been hailed as " freedom fighters" are the former remanants and tribal associates of Saddam' regime. This change of direction has less to do with American army and more to with the some sunni resistance taking up arms against the Alqaeda. Both Alqaeda and America are realising that if don't have the support of the population, you will be defeated no matter how big your army is.

 

[nevesirth]

Local Iraqi forces have been celebrating what they say is a significant victory against al-Qaeda in the province of Diyala, north of Baghdad.

The men - aligned to local Sunni leaders and once anti-government fighters themselves - claim to have captured up to 60 members of al-Qaeda, including some of the group's regional leaders.

Recent violence blamed on the group has taken its toll, turning residents against an organisation they now feel has let them down, local officials say.

Last month, Osama bin Laden criticised his followers in Iraq for losing the support of the locals.

Husein al-Zubaidi, a Diyala official, said: "Al-Qaeda cheated people under the name of 'jihad' and their actions were against all principles.

"They hurt all Iraqi sects, this is what pushed the national armed groups to face them strongly and bravely."

Former Sunni fighters on Saturday asked the US to stay away, then ambushed members of al-Qaeda in Iraq, killing 18 in a battle that raged for hours north of Baghdad, a former Sunni group leader and Iraqi police said.

Abu Ibrahim, a senior Islamic Army leader, said on Saturday that his fighters killed 18 al-Qaeda fighters and captured 16 in the fight southeast of Samarra, a mostly Sunni city about 90km north of Baghdad.

Anbar example

The most notable sign of shifting alliances has been that of tribal chiefs from Anbar, Iraq's largest Sunni province, joining with the government to fight al-Qaeda.

There are also reports that armed groups once allied to al-Qaeda have started to turn against them.

In a sign the government is working towards reconciliation, 70 former members of Saddam Hussein's party were reinstated to their jobs after they joined the fight against al-Qaida in Anbar, Ali al-Lami, a senior official with the commission that considered their cases, said.

Al-Lami told the Associated Press news agency that the former Baath party members included 12 university professors, officers in the disbanded Iraqi army, former policemen and teachers.

Losing ground

According to a US military commander in Baghdad's southern areas, al-Qaeda is losing ground.

Major-General Rick Lynch, who also monitors military activities in the provinces of Babel, Karbala, Najaf and Wasit, said on Sunday the fighters were losing local support as thousands of former anti-American militias had now allied themselves with the US military.

Lynch also said that the quantity of Iranian bomb-making components being found in Iraq is increasing despite a fall in attacks and 20 Iranian-trained agents are still operating south of Baghdad.

He said: "Iranian influence is dominant at many levels."

Lynch's command is said to cover some of Iraq's most dangerous areas, including the so-called Triangle of Death, south of Baghdad.

'Concerned citizens'

Lynch said around 26,000 Iraqis were now working with the military to help secure the region.

He said: "Al-Qaeda has lost support. It does not have support from the local population."

A large number of the "concerned local citizens" - a term used by the US military - were former fighters who battled US-led forces after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government.

Lynch said nearly 16,000 of the 26,000 "concerned citizens" were being employed by the US military to guard checkpoints, bridges and other infrastructure and act as neighbourhood watchdogs.

In related news, British officers have met Iraqi fighters as part of efforts to end sectarian violence, an army officer said in an interview published on Sunday.

Major-General Paul Newton, a senior British army commander in Iraq, told The Sunday Telegraph that he leads a unit - along with a senior US state department official - that is contacting anti-government fighters and their sympathisers to try to find common ground.

Maliki satisfied

For his part, Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, said on Sunday that "terrorist acts" including car bombings and other al-Qaeda-style attacks have dropped by 77 per cent.

He called it a sign that Sunni-Shia violence was nearly gone from Baghdad.

"We are all realising now that what Baghdad was seeing every day - dead bodies in the streets and morgues - is ebbing remarkably," al-Maliki said.

Nevertheless, a trickle of violence continued on Sunday, with at least 10 people killed or found dead around the country.

The toll included a 12-year-old girl in Baghdad's Baladiyat area, who was killed by a roadside bomb that aimed for a US convoy but missed its target, police said.
(More)
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0135731D-D628-4A85-887B-32ABAB700DBF.htm

LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[snakelegs]

Yes, the U.S. isn't that concerned with Afghanistan right now, and for obvious reasons. However, when the troop committment in Iraq goes down, which it will soon, Afghanistan will become more of a focus.

doesn't it strike you as odd how quickly we lost interest in OBL, al-qaeda and the talibaan and put our focus instead on overthrowing a secular leader? (thereby insuring al-qaeda presence in another country, in the course of "bringing democracy".)

 

[wilberhum]

LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go tell Al Jazeera.
Since you have more knowledge then them, maybe they will hire you and pay you big bucks to straighten them out. :?

 

[Keltoi]

doesn't it strike you as odd how quickly we lost interest in OBL, al-qaeda and the talibaan and put our focus instead on overthrowing a secular leader? (thereby insuring al-qaeda presence in another country, in the course of "bringing democracy".)

Well, I'm not sure this wasn't part of the strategy all along. Afghanistan was a cakewalk, probably even easier than the most optimistic general could have envisioned. With OBL and the Al-Qaeda network being pushed into hiding somewhere inside Pakistan, the question became how to hurt these people enough to hopefully break them permamently. Since it isn't politically feasable to pursue these people inside Pakistan...for obvious reasons, I'm sure the idea was raised as to how to bring these people out of hiding and onto a battlefield of our choosing. I sincerely believe that Iraq was that battlefield. Afghanistan isn't a good battlefield from the standpoint of the "jihadist" crowd because of the U.S. ability to destroy you from any vantage point on the battlefield. There is nowhere to hide. Hence the striking lack of any kind of effective offensive from the enemy in that theater. Look at the number of Al-Qaeda affiliates that flocked to Iraq, including Zarqawi. The goal from the standpoint of the enemy in Iraq was to hand the U.S. a Vietnam type of debacle where the price wasn't worth the reward. They have failed at that task, and the locals are turning against them more every day. If these people are going to be broken, it will be in Iraq, not Afghanistan. Just my two cents.....sorry for the long-winded reply.

 

[snakelegs]

Well, I'm not sure this wasn't part of the strategy all along. Afghanistan was a cakewalk, probably even easier than the most optimistic general could have envisioned. With OBL and the Al-Qaeda network being pushed into hiding somewhere inside Pakistan, the question became how to hurt these people enough to hopefully break them permamently. Since it isn't politically feasable to pursue these people inside Pakistan...for obvious reasons, I'm sure the idea was raised as to how to bring these people out of hiding and onto a battlefield of our choosing. I sincerely believe that Iraq was that battlefield. Afghanistan isn't a good battlefield from the standpoint of the "jihadist" crowd because of the U.S. ability to destroy you from any vantage point on the battlefield. There is nowhere to hide. Hence the striking lack of any kind of effective offensive from the enemy in that theater. Look at the number of Al-Qaeda affiliates that flocked to Iraq, including Zarqawi. The goal from the standpoint of the enemy in Iraq was to hand the U.S. a Vietnam type of debacle where the price wasn't worth the reward. They have failed at that task, and the locals are turning against them more every day. If these people are going to be broken, it will be in Iraq, not Afghanistan. Just my two cents.....sorry for the long-winded reply.

this remains to be seen.
thanks for your comments - interesting take.
we shall see.....

 

[Keltoi]

this remains to be seen.
thanks for your comments - interesting take.
we shall see.....

If you're referring to the Vietnam style debacle, I don't think that remains to be seen at all. The simple truth is that the "jihadists" are not the Vietcong, not by a long shot. Their most effective weapon is the IED device, and the U.S. has adapted to this threat, albeit slowly. If we would have listened to the Israelis on the issue of mine detection years ago we would probably be talking about many fewer American losses. Although bad news will always trump good news in media coverage, the level of violence in Iraq has been steadily declining since the latest troop surge. Most of the American military in Iraq are bored to tears. Of the 150,000 or so U.S. military stationed in Iraq, only a small percentage ever witness or experience anything combat related. Those who do usually have the most dangerous jobs, meaning they get convoy duty. It gets really hairy around the Baghdad Airport road, for example. So no, Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. In that aspect they have indeed failed.

 

[Dawud_uk]

Well, I'm not sure this wasn't part of the strategy all along. Afghanistan was a cakewalk, probably even easier than the most optimistic general could have envisioned. With OBL and the Al-Qaeda network being pushed into hiding somewhere inside Pakistan, the question became how to hurt these people enough to hopefully break them permamently. Since it isn't politically feasable to pursue these people inside Pakistan...for obvious reasons, I'm sure the idea was raised as to how to bring these people out of hiding and onto a battlefield of our choosing. I sincerely believe that Iraq was that battlefield. Afghanistan isn't a good battlefield from the standpoint of the "jihadist" crowd because of the U.S. ability to destroy you from any vantage point on the battlefield. There is nowhere to hide. Hence the striking lack of any kind of effective offensive from the enemy in that theater. Look at the number of Al-Qaeda affiliates that flocked to Iraq, including Zarqawi. The goal from the standpoint of the enemy in Iraq was to hand the U.S. a Vietnam type of debacle where the price wasn't worth the reward. They have failed at that task, and the locals are turning against them more every day. If these people are going to be broken, it will be in Iraq, not Afghanistan. Just my two cents.....sorry for the long-winded reply.

lol,

i find it rediculous you think they can be broken at all, dont you realise the sincere will just come back again and again and reorganise and fight you again and again until victory is complete?

if the muslims do not win in this generation, it will be the next or the one after etc, it does not matter to us when we are victorious (though we'd personally like it to be sooner) because we are certain victory will come as it is the promise of Allah swt and the struggle is what is important not when the victory comes.

so even if you do think you win a battle, or you even think you win a war, still the same enemies are coming back for your children, or childrens-childrens until all the muslim lands are under shariah and the khalifate.

Abu Abdullah

 

[Omar_Mukhtar]

Dawud, when u say Muslims do you mean Alqaeda in Iraq as well? Because they broke every single rule in Islam and the entire humanity.Never before have we seen such indiscriminate killing of innoncent civilians, blood thirstyness and they even blew up sheikhs in Mosques simply because they criticised them. If there was ever a Caliphate, these people would hanged in the strees and every one of them would be rounded up. Look what is happening in Iraq; the Sunnis are even starting to trust the Americans who occupied them and carried out crimes against them more so than the people who fought alongside them. In other words, they destroyed a state and broke the back of the resistance. I pray to Allah swt that these people never resurface in any other Muslim state.

 

[snakelegs]

If you're referring to the Vietnam style debacle, I don't think that remains to be seen at all. The simple truth is that the "jihadists" are not the Vietcong, not by a long shot. Their most effective weapon is the IED device, and the U.S. has adapted to this threat, albeit slowly. If we would have listened to the Israelis on the issue of mine detection years ago we would probably be talking about many fewer American losses. Although bad news will always trump good news in media coverage, the level of violence in Iraq has been steadily declining since the latest troop surge. Most of the American military in Iraq are bored to tears. Of the 150,000 or so U.S. military stationed in Iraq, only a small percentage ever witness or experience anything combat related. Those who do usually have the most dangerous jobs, meaning they get convoy duty. It gets really hairy around the Baghdad Airport road, for example. So no, Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. In that aspect they have indeed failed.

well i am not at all sure i agree with you on this.
but you are right (the phrase i bolded) and the other good news is that some of the refugees are actually coming home.

 

[MTAFFI]

Dawud, when u say Muslims do you mean Alqaeda in Iraq as well? Because they broke every single rule in Islam and the entire humanity.Never before have we seen such indiscriminate killing of innoncent civilians, blood thirstyness and they even blew up sheikhs in Mosques simply because they criticised them. If there was ever a Caliphate, these people would hanged in the strees and every one of them would be rounded up. Look what is happening in Iraq; the Sunnis are even starting to trust the Americans who occupied them and carried out crimes against them more so than the people who fought alongside them. In other words, they destroyed a state and broke the back of the resistance. I pray to Allah swt that these people never resurface in any other Muslim state.

It is good to see that there are some good rational Muslims that realize the difference between fighting for ones land and rights and fighting for the sake of killing those who dont share your views

PEACE

 

[Keltoi]

lol,

i find it rediculous you think they can be broken at all, dont you realise the sincere will just come back again and again and reorganise and fight you again and again until victory is complete?

if the muslims do not win in this generation, it will be the next or the one after etc, it does not matter to us when we are victorious (though we'd personally like it to be sooner) because we are certain victory will come as it is the promise of Allah swt and the struggle is what is important not when the victory comes.

so even if you do think you win a battle, or you even think you win a war, still the same enemies are coming back for your children, or childrens-childrens until all the muslim lands are under shariah and the khalifate.

Abu Abdullah

Well, you are working off an assumption that the enemy I'm referring to in Iraq and elsewhere are simply good Muslims. With that mindset it is hard to have a realistic and worthwhile discussion with you on the issue. Muslims aren't the enemy in Iraq, they are nothing but butchers who call themselves Muslims. Call me naive, but I do not accept that a true Muslim would intentionally kill women and children in a marketplace with a suicide bomb, car bomb, RPG, whatever. The sad truth of the matter is that these butchers you call heroes are responsible for killing thousands upon thousands of Muslims. I already know your response, it is a conspiracy. If you can't face simple reality, I don't see how you will ever produce your utopian version of a caliphate.