How Al Qaeda is losing in Iraq

Over playing their hand is causing a shift in public opinion in Iraq

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/070926-totten-al-qaeda-lost.php
from JoeUser Forums

As more reports come out of Iraq, it does seem to appear that "The surge" is working.  The new tactics are working.  Of course, much of the mess the US finds itself in in Iraq is due to the lack of planning and poor handling of the victory on the battlefield in 2003.

Al Qaeda moved in and for awhile, it appeared that they were gaining the upper hand. But then they managed to lose the support of even the insurgents who are increasingly seeing that the US doesn't want to be in Iraq any more than the nationalists in Iraq want them there. By contrast, Al Qaeda began over playing their hand and demanding ever increasing extremism from their allies -- cutting off hands and killing all those who didn't toe the line.  As a result, Al Qaeda is losing support and being crushed on the field according to military commanders.

This article below talks about it in extensive detail. Worth reading for sure!

 

politics
8,455 views 12 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
But... but... but... how can the US be fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq? I thought the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror?

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

But... but... but... how can the US be fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq? I

Dont you know nothun?  There is no Al Qaeda in Iraq, just Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia!  Dont beleive me?  Just ask the NY Times.

The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
"If the US had invaded, say, Bolivia - Osama bin Laden would have completely ignored it. And those who would have claimed invading Bolivia had nothing to do with the War on Terror would have been correct."

- Michael J. Totten
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
If I were going to link to one Michael Totten "the surge is working" article, I'd link to his The Battle of Ramadi. It just basically shows "we are winning" instead of having the Lt. Colonel tell us. I also think Silverman's Stalingrad comparison is a little disrespectful.

I was a little chastened that my media sources didn't deliver me this good news from Iraq. It was reported in left-wing sources like Salon, but it didn't fit into the major liberal narrative. But a good link like Totten's gets through eventually.

My understanding is that the turnaround began last September, with the formation of the Anbar Salvation Council. That would predate the "surge." I need to believe that because I believe there was no way the surge, as a strategy, was even designed so that it might work. But as a PR strategy to buy more time for what was working, I can believe it.

I can tell Dr. Guy has already seen this article, but I don't think Leauki has: fighting "Al Qaeda in Iraq" might be a different thing than fighting "Al Qaeda." I'm not totally sure this is a true way to frame things but let me just explain it as if it was. Zarqawi started his own organization in Iraq, and he could have called it "The Taliban in Iraq," but instead he called it "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia." Bin Laden didn't run it at all. The difference would be that "al Qaeda" is going to come bomb you in the U.S.," and "al Qaeda in Iraq" is just going to try to kick you out of Iraq so they can run it. It is true that the military press releases always say "al Qaeda in Iraq" instead of "al Qaeda," as though the full name is important because it's a separate organization.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

can tell Dr. Guy has already seen this article

I was more surprised I could spell the name from memory.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Mississippopotamia!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

but I don't think Leauki has


I have seen it. In fact, I am very up-to-date with Totten's articles. We nearly met in Israel during the Lebanon war, but we were always in different locations, due to him following the war and my being evacuated away from it. (I was studying in Haifa at the time.)

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I meant the New York Times article Guy was referring to, trying to create a distinction between "Al Qaeda" and "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia."

Do you mind if I ask for a little bit of your personal history? The reason why I wonder is that your link to the Sudanese Thinker blog makes me think you have more of a connection to that part of the world than just studying there.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is a difference between UBL's Al-Qaeda and AMZ's Al-Qaeda In The Land Between Two Rivers (the literal translation; it's interpretation that gives it "Iraq" or "Mesopotamia," but since they co-exist in the same space... it's splitting linguistic hairs). AQ in Iraq is a different group, but an off-shoot, at least idealogically, of the original and led by a man who has ties to the original group and its leadership.

There is also some merit to pointing towards the efforts in Anbar, which some pundits attribute to "the Patriquin plan," rather than "the surge" as the more effective portion of our recent successes. If I ever get off my "lazy" fifth-point-of-contact and write about it, I'll give some of my thoughts then.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
actually the anbar thing turned around when we said that we would put extra troops there.

we couldn't have done that with out the surge.


no i don't have a link.


we put in 4000 extra troops.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Do you mind if I ask for a little bit of your personal history? The reason why I wonder is that your link to the Sudanese Thinker blog makes me think you have more of a connection to that part of the world than just studying there.


I have no connection to that part of the world apart from studying there. However, I do tend to leave an impression and have a tendency to fit in:

(Read the comments.)

http://www.sudanesethinker.com/2007/08/16/dr-abd-al-hamid-al-ansari-the-coolest-liberal-islamic-scholar-ever/

http://www.sudanesethinker.com/2007/08/24/sudan-expels-eu-canada-diplomats/#comments


Anybody can link to the Sudanese Thinker blog (and more people should).

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
I just realise that it has started again and my posts are, again, sometimes signed "Andrew J. Brehm", sometimes as "Leauki". Very annoying.

Anyway:

Andrew J. Brehm == Leauki

(http://web.mac.com/ajbrehm/Home/Welcome.html)