Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Good News from Iraq
Our military announced the capture on July 4, 2007 in Mosul, a top al Qaeda in Iraq leader, Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, also known as Abu Shahid. Wow, that's quite a name. And another one bites the dust (a kenning for death from the Iliad).
The photo is of U.S. Army Soldiers from Delta Company, 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division as they receive notification that their routine patrol in the Dora area of Baghdad, Iraq, is finished July 8, 2007. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Jacob H. Smith)
Labels: Iraq Successes
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 7:18 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
"Good Timing from Iraq"
The day after the NIE outlining al-Qaeda in Iraq's intentions to leverage their (new) resources in Iraq for an attack on the homeland, the US announced the latest in a string of captures of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. There have been at least a dozen captures of the leaders and their second in charges. Officials are unclear as to why this has not dented al-Qaeda in Iraq's effectiveness.
The capture, which occurred over two weeks ago, was released today with little explanation as to the delay. When asked why it had taken two weeks to release the information, officials said, "we just felt the timing was right."
The day after the NIE outlining al-Qaeda in Iraq's intentions to leverage their (new) resources in Iraq for an attack on the homeland, the US announced the latest in a string of captures of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. There have been at least a dozen captures of the leaders and their second in charges. Officials are unclear as to why this has not dented al-Qaeda in Iraq's effectiveness.
The capture, which occurred over two weeks ago, was released today with little explanation as to the delay. When asked why it had taken two weeks to release the information, officials said, "we just felt the timing was right."
If you don't think al Qaeda in Iraq is getting hammered and is slowly becoming less effective, you are misinformed, my old friend. They always delay announcement of the capture, if they can, so that there is a time when the enemy doesn't know what happened to the guy and may not be actively changing things so that intelligence from the captured might still be valid. It's just good warcraft. Don't turn to the truther dark side, Mike. You're too smart for that.
And how strong was al-Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion? So they are less strong now. Does that mean they are almost finished, or just regrouping? Neither you nor I has any decent information on it.
I suppose if we can sufficiently arm the baathists, they might do the job for us.
Then, of course, the real fighting will begin.
I suppose if we can sufficiently arm the baathists, they might do the job for us.
Then, of course, the real fighting will begin.
I think al Qaeda in Iraq is bigger and stronger now that there are American targets to go after, and a partial political vacuum, but I also think that we're kicking the crap out of them and we'll see who stands down first (probably us because of short sighted, wholly wrong, pussy Democrats winning elections--just as with Viet Nam).
Wait, let us juxtapose your two comments here for a second...
1. If you don't think al Qaeda in Iraq is getting hammered and is slowly becoming less effective, you are misinformed...
2. I think al Qaeda in Iraq is bigger and stronger now.....
Come on man, you can't have it both ways. I know the second comment goes back to "we are kicking the crap out of them." But look at it this way..
If you have a small leak in your roof, and you have to dump a bucket of water out every 24 hours, and then you open up a big gaping hole in your roof and you have to dump out a bucket every half an hour, are you fighting the leak more effectively?
The army can only stay at present levels for so long, Roger, and it is not looking even remotely like things are getting close to being settled.
As you said...
I think al Qaeda in Iraq is bigger and stronger now...
As the NIE reported....
[al Qaeda is] "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001."
I'm going to agree with you both.
Was it the Democrats that allowed this to happen?
1. If you don't think al Qaeda in Iraq is getting hammered and is slowly becoming less effective, you are misinformed...
2. I think al Qaeda in Iraq is bigger and stronger now.....
Come on man, you can't have it both ways. I know the second comment goes back to "we are kicking the crap out of them." But look at it this way..
If you have a small leak in your roof, and you have to dump a bucket of water out every 24 hours, and then you open up a big gaping hole in your roof and you have to dump out a bucket every half an hour, are you fighting the leak more effectively?
The army can only stay at present levels for so long, Roger, and it is not looking even remotely like things are getting close to being settled.
As you said...
I think al Qaeda in Iraq is bigger and stronger now...
As the NIE reported....
[al Qaeda is] "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001."
I'm going to agree with you both.
Was it the Democrats that allowed this to happen?
Allowed this to happen? Yeah, we should have undercut Musharref and invaded Waziristan. We know nothing Republicans are the ones doing nothing to fight against Islamic extremism. If you have the tiniest hope that the Democrats will do squat about it, think again. There is only one Scoop Jackson democrat left and he's an independent now after his party stabbed him in the back.
And Mike, fights evolve over time. The war in Viet Nam in 1965 was very different from the war in 1971. The VC in '71 were flat out of the fighting and all the enemy troops were NVA. So the NVA was necessarily stronger in South Viet Nam but we were kicking the crap out of them and could have continued to do so had not political decisions been made which withdrew our guys. The ARVN was also stronger by 1971 than it had been in 1965. Just so, al Qaeda in Iraq is stronger than it was in 2003 but we are stronger and better focused now as well. I'm sorry, but I don't see the contradiction you seem to perceive.
"The army can only stay at present levels for so long," you wrote. Are you talking about a coming political decision to lose or are you in the silly "the Army's broken" crowd?
And Mike, fights evolve over time. The war in Viet Nam in 1965 was very different from the war in 1971. The VC in '71 were flat out of the fighting and all the enemy troops were NVA. So the NVA was necessarily stronger in South Viet Nam but we were kicking the crap out of them and could have continued to do so had not political decisions been made which withdrew our guys. The ARVN was also stronger by 1971 than it had been in 1965. Just so, al Qaeda in Iraq is stronger than it was in 2003 but we are stronger and better focused now as well. I'm sorry, but I don't see the contradiction you seem to perceive.
"The army can only stay at present levels for so long," you wrote. Are you talking about a coming political decision to lose or are you in the silly "the Army's broken" crowd?
I was talking specifically about the invasion and subsequent mismanagement of Iraq which has led to the best recruiting tool and training ground for al-Qaeda yet.
This is not an argument as to who would do a better job now. Indeed, the Republicans have gotten us so far into this hole I don't think anyone will get us out looking good. You are probably right that the Democrats will screw it up even more, but that is hard to imagine vis-a-vis Iraq. Having said that, I'm not a pull-out guy. Nor am I an , Army's broken guy either. I'm an Army is stretched guy.
We can only extend deployments, change the rules for retaining reservists, and drop the standards for enlistment so far before it will be broken. Find me one military analyst that believes we can keep the current troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan for more than another year.
I'll show you a man living in a fantasy world.
Time is running short, my friend. Five years have been well squandered in Iraq, and the repercussions of that will be severe.
We still don't have nearly the troops to actually get the job done, and even if we did, they would still have 9 years of work ahead of them (Patreas' number).
Post a Comment
This is not an argument as to who would do a better job now. Indeed, the Republicans have gotten us so far into this hole I don't think anyone will get us out looking good. You are probably right that the Democrats will screw it up even more, but that is hard to imagine vis-a-vis Iraq. Having said that, I'm not a pull-out guy. Nor am I an , Army's broken guy either. I'm an Army is stretched guy.
We can only extend deployments, change the rules for retaining reservists, and drop the standards for enlistment so far before it will be broken. Find me one military analyst that believes we can keep the current troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan for more than another year.
I'll show you a man living in a fantasy world.
Time is running short, my friend. Five years have been well squandered in Iraq, and the repercussions of that will be severe.
We still don't have nearly the troops to actually get the job done, and even if we did, they would still have 9 years of work ahead of them (Patreas' number).
<< Home
