US officier's:Al-Qaida survives in Iraq

[drache]

WASHINGTON - Al-Qaida is in Iraq to stay, according to military leaders and other officials.
It's not a conclusion the White House talks about much when denouncing the shadowy group, known as al-Qaida in Iraq, that used the U.S. invasion five years ago to develop into a major killer.
The militants are weakened, battered, perhaps even desperate, by most U.S. accounts. But far from being "routed," as Defense Secretary Robert Gates claimed last month, they're still there, still deadly active and likely to remain far into the future, military and other officials told The Associated Press.


Commanders and the other officials commented in interviews and assessments discussing persistent violence in Iraq and intelligence judgments there and in the U.S.
Putting the squeeze on al-Qaida in Iraq was a primary objective of the revised U.S. military strategy that Gen. David Petraeus inherited when he became the top commander in Baghdad 13 months ago. The goal ? largely achieved ? was to minimize the group's ability to inflame sectarian violence, which at the time was so intense that some characterized Iraq as trapped in a civil war.
However, the militants are proving they can survive even the most suffocating U.S. military pressure.
"They are not to be underestimated. That's one thing I've seen over and over," said Col. John Charlton, commander of the Army's 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division. His unit has fought al-Qaida for the past 14 months in a portion of Anbar province that includes the provincial capital of Ramadi.
"I'm always very amazed at their ability to adapt and find new vulnerabilities," Charlton said in a telephone interview this week from his headquarters outside of Ramadi. "They are very good at that," even though they have largely lost the support of local citizens, Charlton said.
'They will always be there'
The U.S. and Iraqi government intent is to chip away at al-Qaida until it is reduced to "almost a nonentity," Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno said March 4 shortly after finishing his tour as the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq. "Unfortunately with these terrorist organizations, they will always be there at some level."
Demonstrating anew their remarkable staying power, the militants are thought to be behind attacks in recent days in Baghdad and beyond, including bombings in the capital March 7 that killed at least 68 people.


Now that U.S. troop reinforcements are beginning to go home, Petraeus and the Bush administration will be watching closely to see if American-trained Iraqi forces can keep up the pressure on al-Qaida.
Al-Qaida in Iraq, which did not exist as a coherent group before U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, probably now numbers no more than 6,000, according to U.S. intelligence estimates. It may have been closer to 10,000-strong before the severe pummeling it took last year, when it lost its main bases of Sunni Arab support. It controls no cities but is still active in pockets through much of central and northern Iraq.
Charlton, whose unit is leaving Iraq shortly and will not be replaced by another U.S. brigade in Anbar, said he is confident of the Iraqis' determination not to allow al-Qaida back into their communities.
Hallmark of al-Qaida
But resilience has been a hallmark of al-Qaida in Iraq, which emerged only after its leader, the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, pledged his allegiance to Osama bin Laden, leader of the global al-Qaida network, in October 2004. It has survived innumerable reverses in recent years, including al-Zarqawi's death in a June 2006 U.S. airstrike
The successor to al-Zarqawi is Abu Ayub al-Masri, an Egyptian who keeps a lower public profile.
The group's other leadership figures also are foreigners from Arab nations including Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Yemen, Syria, Morocco and Libya, according to two defense officials who discussed details of the organization on condition of anonymity. The rank-and-file membership is largely Iraqi.
Hardly a day goes by that the U.S. military command in Baghdad doesn't announce the capture or killing of an al-Qaida figure. On Thursday, for example, the military said troops detained four suspected terrorists northwest of Samarra while targeting an alleged foreign terrorist facilitator and associates of a media cell leader involved in al-Qaida's network in Anbar province.
Brian Fishman, an al-Qaida watcher at the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy, said that although al-Qaida in Iraq lost some of its "strategic focus" after al-Zarqawi's death, it remains a threat.
"It's way too soon to count these guys out," he said.


In a report to Congress this week, the Pentagon said elements of al-Qaida in Iraq are "highly lethal" in parts of the Tigris River valley north of Baghdad and in Ninevah province in northern Iraq. And it said the group, though less effective overall, is capable of striking "across Iraq."
That doesn't seem to fit the description offered by Army Lt. Col. John A. Nagl, a battalion commander in the 1st Infantry Division, who wrote in an opinion article in The Washington Post on March 9 that al-Qaida in Iraq was "largely defeated."
Certainly the group's stated goal of establishing an Islamic fundamentalist state in Iraq has been blocked. And there is no sign that al-Qaida is anywhere near being in position to regain momentum.
Charlton, the Army commander in Ramadi, said propaganda material from local al-Qaida members or supporters has changed markedly in tone in recent months.
"Back in early 2007 and in 2006 you would typically see propaganda that was very boastful, very aggressive and very confident," Charlton said. "It would say things like, 'We're coming to get the sheiks, we're going to kill them all,' that type of stuff. Lately, the propaganda is very different. It's appealing on an ideological basis to the population ? as if they realize they've lost the support of the people."
But al-Qaida isn't going away.
Marine Maj. Gen. John Kelly, the top U.S. commander in Anbar province, told reporters at the Pentagon by teleconference this week that al-Qaida in Iraq has the wherewithal, when squeezed, to shift to other places. After being pushed out of Anbar in early 2007, the militants reasserted themselves in Baghdad. After getting hammered in the capital they slipped north, first to Diyala and more recently to the northern province of Ninevah, whose capital, Mosul, is now the scene of heavy fighting.
"Our sense is they'll come back to where they know best," Kelly said, referring to Anbar.

Trillons of dollars, almost 4,000 Americans killed and we're still going in circles.

And McCain wants us to continue?



Oh and here's more bad news

 

[Jin-E]

I read the article earlier.

Unless you can kill or capture all of them, its literally impossible to stamp them out when they are in a country where rampant anarcy, lack of centralized authority and a security vacuum is widespread. Since we are talking about an extremely shadowy ghost army, you cant just annihalate them in one swoop. You can minimize it and weaken them over time, but its unlikely that you will wholly eradicate it in years or even decades.

 

[Edo]

The USA should get out of Iraq and admit defeat.

It should let Iraqi's solve their problems on their won now, a civil war and a division is unavoidable in Iraq, the USA is only delaying the inevitable.

Iraq future should be left in Iraqis hands for once.

 

[drache]

I read the article earlier.

Unless you can kill or capture all of them, its literally impossible to stamp them out when they are in a country where rampant anarcy, lack of centralized authority and a security vacuum is widespread. Since we are talking about an extremely shadowy ghost army, you cant just annihalate them in one swoop. You can minimize it and weaken them over time, but its unlikely that you will wholly eradicate it in years or even decades.

Which is why we need to at least hand this off to the UN; we as a nation just completely FUBARed Iraq and it's past time we admit to that like grown ups.

I don't like that choice but it's the best one remaining.

 

[Megaharrison]

There's a myth that it's impossible to defeat insurgencies. This is only true to a degree. You can't destroy a movement but you can reduce it to the point of irrelevance. The Chechen insurgency against Russia and suicide bombing campaign against Israel are such examples. Al Qaeda in Iraq will always be there in one form or another. The question is how annoying can they be.

And I really wouldn't hand anything to the UN. If you give them the job to moderate Muslim terrorists they'll be armed with cruise missiles and the worlds latest anti-tank rockets in a few years, like in Lebanon. At the same time promoting democracy like Bush is doing is sheer idiocy as it always backfires on civilizing the state, like in Gaza.

What should be done in Iraq is what I've been saying for years: to simply drop the democracy BS. It's not why you guys went there, and it's not why you should stay there. Institute a secular Sunni military dictatorship similar to Saddam Hussein. This will forcibly put down the partisan fighting, oppress the Shiites and prevent them from turning Iraq into an Iranian satellite, and give a base of operations against Iran should the need arise at the same time. It's a far more likely scenario. Already the Coalition is recruiting awakened Sunni's while the Shiites are simply loyal to the Mahdi Army and Sadr.

This may not work for the American public though. I dunno how attached to democratic expansionism they really are. I for one at least don't give a flying fuck how these people are run as long as they behave themselves.

 

[Simulacrum]

The USA should get out of Iraq and admit defeat.

It should let Iraqi's solve their problems on their won now, a civil war and a division is unavoidable in Iraq, the USA is only delaying the inevitable.

Iraq future should be left in Iraqis hands for once.

If the coalition forces leave, it doesn't mean that only Iraqis will be left there. There are other neighboring nations that have a vested interest in Iraq: Iran, Syria, Turkey. Iraq is rich in oil, and they would actually benefit from the disintegration of the Iraqi nation, and they would blame the US and the west as they profit from the chaos. Do I even have to talk about how this would inflame the jihadists?

Leaving Iraq is without a doubt the dumbest course of action.

 

[Edo]

There's a myth that it's impossible to defeat insurgencies. This is only true to a degree. You can't destroy a movement but you can reduce it to the point of irrelevance. The Chechen insurgency against Russia and suicide bombing campaign against Israel are such examples. Al Qaeda in Iraq will always be there in one form or another. The question is how annoying can they be.

And I really wouldn't hand anything to the UN. If you give them the job to moderate Muslim terrorists they'll be armed with cruise missiles and the worlds latest anti-tank rockets in a few years, like in Lebanon. At the same time promoting democracy like Bush is doing is sheer idiocy as it always backfires on civilizing the state, like in Gaza.

What should be done in Iraq is what I've been saying for years: to simply drop the democracy BS. It's not why you guys went there, and it's not why you should stay there. Institute a secular Sunni military dictatorship similar to Saddam Hussein. This will forcibly put down the partisan fighting, oppress the Shiites and prevent them from turning Iraq into an Iranian satellite, and give a base of operations against Iran should the need arise at the same time. It's a far more likely scenario. Already the Coalition is recruiting awakened Sunni's while the Shiites are simply loyal to the Mahdi Army and Sadr.

This may not work for the American public though. I dunno how attached to democratic expansionism they really are. I for one at least don't give a flying fuck how these people are run as long as they behave themselves.

LoL....so you are saying they need a new Saddam???

After all this Democracy shit the USA has been trying to sell the world, I don't see how they can put a dictatorship back in power in Iraq.

As I said before, it seems that the only "other" way to end this is to split Iraq...it is sad, but if every party gets a piece it should stop most of the violence...a civil war is inevitable.

Megaharrison's way can work, you already seen it in action with Saddam, but after all the democracy shit, that is not an option to the USA.

 

[Lezard Valeth]

There's a myth that it's impossible to defeat insurgencies. This is only true to a degree. You can't destroy a movement but you can reduce it to the point of irrelevance. The Chechen insurgency against Russia and suicide bombing campaign against Israel are such examples. Al Qaeda in Iraq will always be there in one form or another. The question is how annoying can they be.

And I really wouldn't hand anything to the UN. If you give them the job to moderate Muslim terrorists they'll be armed with cruise missiles and the worlds latest anti-tank rockets in a few years, like in Lebanon. At the same time promoting democracy like Bush is doing is sheer idiocy as it always backfires on civilizing the state, like in Gaza.

What should be done in Iraq is what I've been saying for years: to simply drop the democracy BS. It's not why you guys went there, and it's not why you should stay there. Institute a secular Sunni military dictatorship similar to Saddam Hussein. This will forcibly put down the partisan fighting, oppress the Shiites and prevent them from turning Iraq into an Iranian satellite, and give a base of operations against Iran should the need arise at the same time. It's a far more likely scenario. Already the Coalition is recruiting awakened Sunni's while the Shiites are simply loyal to the Mahdi Army and Sadr.

This may not work for the American public though. I dunno how attached to democratic expansionism they really are. I for one at least don't give a flying fuck how these people are run as long as they behave themselves.

So you're saying to Americans that they did this war to secure Israel? I'm sure Americans are glad they spent countless lives and bucks to secure your Jew State. And I'm sure Americans are willing to spend even more with another war on Iran to further secure it.

 

[Sky is Over]

Which is why we need to at least hand this off to the UN; we as a nation just completely FUBARed Iraq and it's past time we admit to that like grown ups.

I don't like that choice but it's the best one remaining.

Well, we know the true of the U.N. force=shit. Africa is a good enough example of how they're obsolete, which is why IMO we should stay until they're strong enough to fend for themselves. IMO, i think we need a new strategy and a face leading this war. I think Obama would be an excellent candidate

@of course Al Qaida won't be truly vanquished from the country, but reduced to small numbers to where they can't carry out massive attacks. The way I see the situation is like pressing down on something but having it squeeze out the other end. We've taken Anbar, we've taken Baghdad, and now we need to Diylayato push them off the cliff. But the question ask is do we have enough to push them that far?

 

[Edo]

@of course Al Qaida won't be truly vanquished from the country, but reduced to small numbers to where they can't carry out massive attacks. The way I see the situation is like pressing down on something but having it squeeze out the other end. We've taken Anbar, we've taken Baghdad, and now we need to Diylayato push them off the cliff. But the question ask is do we have enough to push them that far?

No, the question is will they appear after the USA leaves Iraq?

I believe that it is futile on the USA's part to try and destroy those so called terrorists in Iraq....once the USA is out of there they will reappear.

It is time for Iraqi's to solve their problems on their own.

 

[Simulacrum]

There's a myth that it's impossible to defeat insurgencies. This is only true to a degree. You can't destroy a movement but you can reduce it to the point of irrelevance. The Chechen insurgency against Russia and suicide bombing campaign against Israel are such examples. Al Qaeda in Iraq will always be there in one form or another. The question is how annoying can they be.

And I really wouldn't hand anything to the UN. If you give them the job to moderate Muslim terrorists they'll be armed with cruise missiles and the worlds latest anti-tank rockets in a few years, like in Lebanon. At the same time promoting democracy like Bush is doing is sheer idiocy as it always backfires on civilizing the state, like in Gaza.

What should be done in Iraq is what I've been saying for years: to simply drop the democracy BS. It's not why you guys went there, and it's not why you should stay there. Institute a secular Sunni military dictatorship similar to Saddam Hussein. This will forcibly put down the partisan fighting, oppress the Shiites and prevent them from turning Iraq into an Iranian satellite, and give a base of operations against Iran should the need arise at the same time. It's a far more likely scenario. Already the Coalition is recruiting awakened Sunni's while the Shiites are simply loyal to the Mahdi Army and Sadr.

This may not work for the American public though. I dunno how attached to democratic expansionism they really are. I for one at least don't give a flying fuck how these people are run as long as they behave themselves.

Meet the new boss,
Same as the old boss.

The thing is that any dictator, no matter who they are or what their goal is, will devolve into an abusive overlord who panders to his own constituents. The only way to prevent this problem is to have a regulated system where power changes hands: elections.

The world thought that the union of the American States would break down and the nation would be dissolved eventually because this process appears to incite chaos and each state is inherently looking out for itself. That is not a problem: that's the real source our power. Each separate state functions effectively enough to run itself, using politics and politicians instead of militias and force, and we join together to fight threats that we couldn't defeat individually for the benefit of the union.

Once the Iraqi government is merely capable of standing on its own feet it'll be able to take care of itself. Every year more and more of the populace and tribal leaders are pitching their lot in with the coalition. Doing what you suggest would be like spitting in their face.

 

[Lezard Valeth]

It is time for Iraqi's to solve their problems on their own.

You sound like the US invasion is not the reason why AQ could take ground on Iraq. Do you realize AQ was non-existent in Iraq before this war? Iraq is a mess today and its puppet government will not have the power to contain AQ without the backup of the US forces. Is it morally right to leave Iraqi now after causing this mess?

 

[Sky is Over]

No, the question is will they appear after the USA leaves Iraq?

I believe that it is futile on the USA's part to try and destroy those so called terrorists in Iraq....once the USA is out of there they will reappear.

It is time for Iraqi's to solve their problems on their own.

Which is why they need a strong military goverment to fill in the power gap when the US leaves the country and they return, which I think the US will be able to provide and fund while they are in the country. But I also think that while we are there, we need to do everything possible to restore power/utilities/etc. to disencourage any insurgent activity.

 

[Edo]

You sound like the US invasion is not the reason why AQ could take ground on Iraq. Do you realize AQ was non-existent in Iraq before this war? Iraq is a mess today and its puppet government will not have the power to contain AQ without the backup of the US forces. Is it morally right to leave Iraqi now after causing this mess?

You do realize we are not talking about Alqaeda only, right?

Once the USA leaves Iraq, everyone will want a piece for their own.

The Shiites and Sunnis will want to control the country, the Kurds will want to control northern Iraq and there is a lot of oil there, Turkey will interfere in the North, Iran will try to play a role and of course AQ will play its role too.

Which is why they need a strong military goverment to fill in the power gap when the US leaves the country and they return, which I think the US will be able to provide and fund while they are in the country. But I also think that while we are there, we need to do everything possible to restore power/utilities/etc. to disencourage any insurgent activity.

You've been there for ages and nothing seems to be changing, you have to realize that the USA presence is part of the reason there is such violence.

You can get out of there and supply the government with all the help it may need from the outside...as I said before it is time for Iraqis to solve their problems.

 

[Megaharrison]

So you're saying to Americans that they did this war to secure Israel? blah blah blah evil Jew conspiracies.

Lol, where did I say anything about Israel? Christ you Israelphobes are paranoid.

 

[Lezard Valeth]

Lol, where did I say anything about Israel? Christ you Israelphobes are paranoid.

Just re-read your post, I don't even know who you are and I could tell your sole concern was Israel. And I don't give a damn about Israel, I just don't like when a debate that should have nothing to do with Israel is reduced to "me like/me dont likes Israel"

 

[Sky is Over]

You've been there for ages and nothing seems to be changing, you have to realize that the USA presence is part of the reason there is such violence.

Of course, I won't deny that our presence has been a source/reason of violence, but once we're the last thing left we can rightly remove ourselves. And it isn't really fair to say some things haven't changed; people are now able to move about on the streets in comparison to a few years back when they were huddled up inside their houses afraid to walk out in fear of being killed by insurgents. progress ha sbeen made, but we hope to make more before we have to depart.

You can get out of there and supply the government with all the help it may need from the outside...as I said before it is time for Iraqis to solve their problems.

We do intend on doing that, but our concern is that because of the oil reserves that either Syria/Iran might try to make their mark in the country and establish their own government, an dmight cause an upsurge of shia/sunni violence throughout the middle east. So what might be the iraqi's problems might sprawl out and become the middle east's problems.

A question I must ask you is that do you support the Tri-Nation plan? (Establishing a Shia/Sunni/Kurd Iraq?)

 

[maximilyan]

Al quada is like orochimaru. you can stall them, but you cant kill them.