Posted on 09/27/2006 2:49:00 AM PDT by The Raven
On a day when much of the capital's attention was focused on leaked excerpts of an intelligence estimate report that suggested the Iraq war was creating more jihadists, the military quietly released an intercepted letter from Al Qaeda complaining that the terrorist organization was losing ground in Iraq.
The letter, found in the headquarters of Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, after he was killed on June 7, was sent to Zarqawi by a senior Al Qaeda leader who signs his name simply "Atiyah." He complains that Al Qaeda is weak both in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and in Iraq.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
The prize will be to take credit for everything Bush has done.
I agree that the situation in Iraq helps to motivate more Muslims to join radical groups. However, I also believe that those Muslims are more motivated to take up the more pressing cause of driving the infidels from Arab land, rather than the thought of coming to America and blowing stuff up here. The latter will not go away until we find all of them and kill them, but there is merit to the "flypaper theory" for the former.
Iraq is the ice-cream truck in the radicals neighborhood
"Ding Ding"
IOW's, the Dems want to surrender our license to kill bad guys and to move the war front back to Manhattan with office workers on the front line.
Zactly!
BTTT- So true.
The name of the game is to arrange the meeting between their terrorists and our soldiers. That can be done here or there. I prefer it to be done there.
I spoke to a newspaper editor yesterday that told me she believes Bush is lying, and is spying on all our phone calls. I said, "Oh, do ya think he's getting any good recipes?!" I've never seen such a smaryassed pissed off look in my life. I told her if anyone is creating more terrorist it is her and her ilk in the DBM, with their loonie hate Bush agenda, abject lies, and biased reviews of the war...She walked away.
We need to start a reward for any information on the traitor who has done all this leaking to the NYTs. We could see if we could get Rush, Sean, Laura, Micheal...any and all of the conservative pundits behind it, write editorials in our local papers. There are a lot of movers and shakers on FR and they could make it happen. This would put it before the electorate and make them think.
This letter has major implications...the writer confirms where the leadership is hiding in Pakistan...narrows the search. Also it points out how the AQ leadership lives in fear of a mole in their midst...
I would pledge 100 bucks to that cause!
I think it would also help if President Bush would say that people who leak this stuff are traitors and those who print and pass it along are sympathitic towards traitors.
I agree but why wait for that to happen. We are Americans and we care about our country and our service men and women. I'm not an organizer but there are some on FR who could run this and we freepers could help.
I think it's only people like you and I and politico's who actually pay any attention to this stuff. It's just a drop of rain in the ocean, it's all about a "Hate Bush" agenda. These people are STILL pissed off about 2000 and think the election was stolen from them.
I truly think they will all lose their minds before they ever are a majority again.
I have to be gone all day but please raise this on posts and help get some movers and shakers going. I'll do my part but I'm not an organizer.
Makes ya wonder what she's saying on the phone that causes her to be paranoid, don't it?
Iraq is a potential fleet of aircraft carriers that, along with Afghanistan, surround Iran.
After my little joke, I responded by telling her The NSA spy program is for TERRORIST, not Americans to be spied. She knew quite well that this is the case, but these loser liberals want to still follow the "Hate Bush" agenda, and that's what she is doing.
Insanity!
Speaking of Al Qaeda in Iraq....last night on CNN Anderson Cooper's 360, he was speaking with his Baghdad reporter (don't remember his name) who said the following...and I quote, "The great thing about Al Qaeda is that it is an idea which inspires..."
Yes, that's right. An American (and I use that term loosely) journalist (that one too) just said "the great thing about Al Qaeda." You could see by the look on his face as the words came out of his mouth that he knew he had just made an "oops."
Now that's what I call "fair and balanced." Unbelievable.
There is NO OTHER PATH TO FOLLOW! dims HAVE NOTHING BUT DEFEAT AND SURRENDER IN THEIR TRICK BAG! Kill them all in Iraq!
LLS
That word- "traitors"- should not be used by W or anyone official unless he Justice Dept. is going to prosecute. And it should.
Excellent Comment - This needs to be repeated again and again
mark.
The Democrats are trying to lose this war just like they did with Vietnam, with equally disastrous results. Their cowardice is disgusting.
Good work!
"I truly think they will all lose their minds before they ever are a majority again."
I think they all HAVE lost their minds, and I pray God they NEVER become a majority again.
Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.
The Greeks understood this.
Fox & Friends were talking about this a while ago. Thanks for posting the link.
bttt
bump for later
If our intel guys haven't infiltrated al Queda five years after 9-11, they're not doing their job. I'm willing to bet we have a mole or two or ten hanging out in caves in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan.
I this regard I can't recommend “The Looming Tower” highly enough as an aid to understanding the role of Al Qaeda a it's many associated groups. For example many in the US are still thinking in terms of "body counts" (the "Terrorst Magnet" theory). But Al Qaeda suffered many reverses and even abject defeats (Osama Bin Laden, for example, was particularly inept as a leader during actual military operations) and by claiming victory even in defeat and taking credit for the successful actions of others was able to create a powerful mystique which served it well both as a recruiting beacon and as a inspiration to other similar groups.
In this light, our position in Iraq appears particularly unfortunate.
Someday, we will leave.
And when we do the, Jihadists will take credit for our "expulsion", and many will believe them, further increasing their influence. (This is exactly what happened in Afghanistan - Al Qaeda played a very minor role in that conflict, but Al Qaeda successfully trafficked in inflated accounts of its importance in expelling the Russians for a decade thereafter.)
Meanwhile, we have 100,000 plus high-tech troops, at a cost of 30-50 billion dollars a year, fighting a shadowy enemy who is successfully attacking them with roadside bombs made for $10 or less from a salvaged artillery round. Under these conditions from the Jihadist prespective – and more important to many in the Islamic world - our victories are the result of the criminal application of massive fire power – the frustrated lashings out of a wounded giant – while any Jihadist success against our troops is a valiant act of resistance successfully undertaken again enormous odd.
And this - barring a political miracle in Iraq – in a war with no end in sight that will not be celebrated by Radical Islam as its victory, and perceived by almost everyone else as our loss.
So IMO it’s time facts: we may have undertaken the occupation of Iraq with the best of intentions, and perhaps given a different strategy – more men on the ground to maintain order, and a more realistic set of expectations as to how the internal politics would play out - we might have left Iraq - and ourselves - in a better position.
But as the situation has actually developed, whatever Al Qaeda’s role in Iraq at the end of our involvement in that sorry country, in the battle with “Islamic Terrorism” writ large we are almost certainly going to “lose” in Iraq.
I don't think that current leadership of either party can admit this, or formulate realistic plans to extract us from this mess - their reputations are on the line, and it's just to tempting to "kick the can down the road" and hope the next guy will take the blame.
But in the meantime, we can continue to educate ourselves about the history, aims, and strengths and weaknesses of the Radical Islamic movements that have turned to terrorism and how they relate to the broader course of Islamic thought (and I'll say it again "The Looming Tower" is a good place to start).
Because until we do - and demand better of out leaders - we cannot expect no better of them.
"we can expect no better of them."
Methinks the 'deal' Pakistan made with the Taliban was more a 'deal' with us. That is, sure, the Pakistanis won't militarily operate in that area, indeed, will totally withdraw. Withdraw so much that the allies may, ahem, accidentally cross the border chasing bad guys but the Pakistani government cannot confirm. In other words, I think we got a green light to go get 'em...
Absolutely. But geographically-challenged Americans can't grasp what should be obvious. Rewind to Turkey's refusal to accomodate the opening of a northern front in the Iraq invasion, restrictions imposed by the Saudis on bases there and the withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia.
or how about (I swear, I am NOT making this up) George Bush is PERSONALY listening in on my acquaintance's phone calls (he "can hear the line click") because KKKarl Rove told the president that "music is of the devil" and anyone who has listened to a radio or bought a CD during the last six years will be sent to Gittmo or those Czech concentration camps...
That's how I see it, too.
Those believing Iraq has created more terrorists probably believe that ants, which appear in hordes after and ant hill is disturbed, just came out of nowhere.
They were talking on Fox and Friends about this earlier this morning
Did the Japanese make more enemies of Americans when the bombed Pearl Harbor? I ask this because it's silly to think that when one country attacks another or when a country that's been attacked reacts defensively, that this doesn't make more enemies then you had previously.
The letter, should have been sent to McCain instead of Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, Al Qaeda could have asked for funding. John would want to make sure it's a fair fight.
At the tail end of the article the writer slips this in. This should have been front and center, in my opinion.
That's because al-Qa'ida is changing from a simple group into a global philosophy.
Small groups of individuals in areas with no history or links to terrorism can become radicalized with AQ inspired propaganda. They can go to jihadist websites and put together their own plots with their own resources. The term 'home grown terrorists' is a dismissive and naiive way of portraying what will be an increasingly commong threat. It's the jihadist equivalent of yelling "I am Sparticus"
Insofar as we defeat al-Qa'ida proper, that doesn't end the threat anymore. It's too late for that. The next generation al-Qa'idas are already in the incubator.
For example many in the US are still thinking in terms of "body counts" (the "Terrorst Magnet" theory).
In a war of this type, body counts are almost entirely irrelevant. The center of gravity in this kind of warfare isn't in units, manpower, or equipment. It's the social makeup of the Muslim communities themselves. As a U.S. doctor serving in the Korean war commented, on the Chinese, "The womb may yet prove to be the most effective weapon of all". So long as those communities are inclined to support extremism, or, more commonly, to not actively combat it, enemy reinforcements will never be far behind.
In this light, our position in Iraq appears particularly unfortunate.
It's unfortunate only in that we tried to use the military as a crutch, in light of a poor post-war political reconstruction effort. We are effectively invincible from a military standpoint, but unable to attain victory. That enduring stalemate provides ample propaganda to recruit new jihadists the world over.
And when we do the, Jihadists will take credit for our "expulsion", and many will believe them, further increasing their influence. (This is exactly what happened in Afghanistan - Al Qaeda played a very minor role in that conflict, but Al Qaeda successfully trafficked in inflated accounts of its importance in expelling the Russians for a decade thereafter.)
At this point, even if it ends in a draw, with both sides able to claim some sort of partial success, it will be a Phyrric victory. Al-Qa'ida may be broken in Afghanistan and Iraq, but a new generation of terrorists have cut their teeth on the U.S. military. The new jihadists will take home lessons that will be taught again, posted on the internet, and preached in mosques.
The idea of Arab resistance to foriegn aggression is a romantic one that sells very well in the Middle East. There doesn't have to be much tangible gain for the myths to be spread, and for Arabs to feel pride and motivation over it.
Meanwhile, we have 100,000 plus high-tech troops, at a cost of 30-50 billion dollars a year, fighting a shadowy enemy who is successfully attacking them with roadside bombs made for $10 or less from a salvaged artillery round.
Coming soon to a roadside near you. Iraq, if nothing else, has taught jihadists how easy and inexpensive it can be to fight us, even at our strongest.
Under these conditions from the Jihadist prespective – and more important to many in the Islamic world - our victories are the result of the criminal application of massive fire power – the frustrated lashings out of a wounded giant – while any Jihadist success against our troops is a valiant act of resistance successfully undertaken again enormous odd.
It's a romantic myth of battle and courage, but it's what they want to believe. Those tales inspire religious Muslims into radicalism, by playing upon their pride, sense of community, and religious faith. The mosques will radiate these myths into their members, and networks will form.
But as the situation has actually developed, whatever Al Qaeda’s role in Iraq at the end of our involvement in that sorry country, in the battle with “Islamic Terrorism” writ large we are almost certainly going to “lose” in Iraq.
Victory is not yet out of our grasp, but, unless we really get our act together and turn Iraq around, the jihadists will also walk away with considerable winnings. Those spoils many not be much more than experience, credibility, and terrorist contacts, but it'll be enough to nurture a global jihad still in it's infancy.
I don't think that current leadership of either party can admit this, or formulate realistic plans to extract us from this mess - their reputations are on the line, and it's just to tempting to "kick the can down the road" and hope the next guy will take the blame.
We're going to be in this war for decades.
But in the meantime, we can continue to educate ourselves about the history, aims, and strengths and weaknesses of the Radical Islamic movements that have turned to terrorism and how they relate to the broader course of Islamic thought (and I'll say it again "The Looming Tower" is a good place to start).
The best chance we have of winning is in understanding the problem, and I completely agree with you there. Informed debate and clear thinking is the only way out of this maze. That said, prepare to be flamed, and flamed hard, for seeking answers outside of the party line.
No serious analysts thought it was fake. At least, none that knew where we got it. Some scholarly types who call themselves 'intelligence analysts', perhaps, but that would be all.
AQI media simply denies anything that sounds negative; they're not interested in the truth, or held accountable by their constituency for it.
In conventional warfare, advantageous terrain is considered to be high ground, choke points, and otherwise important terrain. In the GWOT, the mosques and Islamic communities themselvs are the hills and bridges.
Firepower won't change that. In fact, too much force plays into the hands of our enemies. The teachings of Islam by themselves are pretty harsh, and will always generate some real crackpots like bin Laden. Wen whipped up into a frenzy over things like the long Iraqi occupation, large numbers of Muslims can be easily pushed into militancy.
The left and appeasers never get serious. Ordinary realists have always been the ones to have to face the guns of tyrants after the left and appeasers sit by and watch and try endless "diplomacy" while the tyrants advance. . then, after enough people die, ordinary realists have to take the wheel and the great unwashed realists have to shoulder the burden - while narcissists like Clinton dodge the draft and plan their own personal advancement . . that is what the burden is about . . "The Task and the Burden" as so well described by Marjorie Noon in her book written 50 yrs. ago.
A 60-ton ice-cream truck with a 120mm Rheinmetall cannon.
Come and get it, kids.
I don't know... is there still a "party line"?
There is an administration position, "stay the course", and there are various positions on the alternatives, but the sense I get is that increasingly people have a desire for some realistic, straight talk about viable alternatives to just sitting there, taking casualties, and waiting for the various factions in Iraq to somehow resolve their political problems. And it seems to me that more and more people would settle for de facto partition (“Those are just the facts on the ground”), or total chaos or a functioning coalition government composed of members willing to agreed to disagree long enough to ask us to leave (“You can’t save people from themselves”) or a more pressing crisis that required out troops elsewhere (if we discovered that North Korea was selling nuclear weapons to terrorists, would anyone care much what happened once they left Iraq if our troops there were needed in NK to deal with an imminent threat to the mainland US?) – that is for just about any resolution that gave us a face-saving way out, petty much irrespective of what we left behind.
Meanwhile, though we don’t know what’s next, it’s not clear to me that a “party line” is left to follow which can unite people either here or elsewhere as we search for a “next step”.
And it’s in this light that IMO you have to look (for example) at the various geopolitical arguments often made by those who consider themselves pragmatic supporters of a continued occupation - the “unsinkable aircraft carrier” and “access to oil” arguments and so on – unless we find leadership better able to unite the country behind the means to such ends, they are fantasy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.