Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. now sees Al Qaida as leader of war effort in Iraq
World Tribune ^ | 8/19/03

Posted on 08/19/2003 10:36:37 AM PDT by veronica

The United States has concluded that Al Qaida and its allies are taking over the Sunni insurgency war in Iraq.

U.S. officials said Central Command officers in Iraq have seen increasing evidence of Al Qaida and Islamic volunteer forces participating and even leading the insurgency war in the Sunni Triangle. They said Al Qaida has succeeded in presenting Iraq as the next arena for what the movement terms the Islamic holy war against the United States.

"Foreign terrorists are attracted to areas where the coalition is on the offense in the global war on terror, and in Iraq we are on the offense in the global war on terror," Defense Department acting spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said. "There's clearly an indication that foreign terrorists are involved in the kind of violence that we see here."

[On Monday, an Al Qaida spokesman said in a tape broadcast on the Dubai-based Al Arabiya television that Osama Bin Laden and Taliban chief Mullah Omar were alive, Middle East Newsline reported. The spokesman, identified as Abdul Rahman Al Najdi, reiterated a call to Muslims to fight U.S. troops in Iraq.]

Officials said the methods of Al Qaida differ from those of loyalists to deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. They said the Al Qaida insurgents favor truck and roadside bombs rather than engaging U.S. troops with mortars, rocket-propelled grenades or small arms fire.

"I think we clearly are adapting as, as you understand, that what began as attacks that were primarily small-arms based evolved into mortars and then rocket-propelled grenades, and now increasingly is through the use of improvised explosive devices," Lt. Gen. Norton Schwartz, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said. "We will adapt to that reality and appropriately provide for force protection for our forces while we engage the perpetrators, both during an event but, more importantly, to engage them prior to an act of violence against our forces."

Officials and analysts have asserted that Al Qaida and aligned groups will increase their involvement in Iraq. They cite the re-entry of Al Qaida-sponsored groups such as Ansar Islam and Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, both of whom were active in Iraq before the U.S.-led war in March.

"They're [U.S. military] going after these foreign terrorists and finding them," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said on Monday. "And they will continue to do that and defeat them wherever they may be."

Kurdish sources in northern Iraq said Ansar Islam has infiltrated the cities of Kirkuk and Suleimaniya. They said the Ansar operatives have been inciting residents of those cities to attack U.S. troops.

"What I think they're [Al Qaida] attempting to do is to make Iraq into the 21st century version of what Afghanistan was," Bruce Hoffman, vice president for external affairs at the Washington-based Rand Corp. and a consultant on terrorism, said. "In other words, a rallying cry, a place where foreign fighters are supposed to come to defend Islam, that now is not the time to operate."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alqaeda; alqaedaandiraq; ansarislam; guerrillas; insurgents; iraq; randcorp; rebuildingiraq

1 posted on 08/19/2003 10:36:38 AM PDT by veronica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: veronica
Nice of Al Qaeda to take the fight where we have our greatest concentration of trained soldiers.
2 posted on 08/19/2003 10:37:31 AM PDT by dirtboy (Arnold's positions are like the alien in Predator - you can't see them but you know they're lethal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Amen to that. I think what we might see is an opportunity for us to reall kick the sh*t our of these bastards once and for all. Oh, and for any country in the M.E. who is found to be assisting them, you can pretty much expect to have rockets rain down on you.

Could this be the start of the big campaign to blast the evil part of the Muslim world to dust?

3 posted on 08/19/2003 10:43:43 AM PDT by misterrob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: veronica
Maybe we need to change the operation's title from "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to "Operation Al Quida Death?"
4 posted on 08/19/2003 10:44:06 AM PDT by NavyCaptain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
They cite the re-entry of Al Qaida-sponsored groups such as Ansar Islam and Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, both of whom were active in Iraq before the U.S.-led war in March.

I'd take this article with a grain of salt. Not that I'm doubting there are terrorists (including evil AQ cowards) in Iraq. But Zarqawi is not an Al Qaeda group, but an AQ terrorist. I'm not so sure how thoroughly this author and editor(s) reviewed this article.

5 posted on 08/19/2003 10:48:02 AM PDT by Coop (God bless our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coop
Come on. The attack today has all the earmarks of an Al Qaida hit.
6 posted on 08/19/2003 10:50:56 AM PDT by veronica (http://www.petitiononline.com/KN50711/petition.html - Confirm Daniel Pipes to USIPF ......sign this!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: misterrob
Amen to that. I think what we might see is an opportunity for us to reall kick the sh*t our of these bastards once and for all.

The ones we don't kill in battle, I'd try 'em and give them the "Heussein treatment." Take 'em out behind the proverbial woodshed and fire up the shredder.

7 posted on 08/19/2003 11:01:00 AM PDT by Cobra64 (Babes should wear Bullet Bras - www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: veronica
all the earmarks

All the earmarks? Please. It was a truck bomb. On a soft target. Whoopee. So I guess AQ did Beirut, too? Or OKC?

An earmark for AQ is long-term planning for coordinated attacks. This could have been just as easily have been a PO'd Special RG commander with access to C4.

Having said that, I think AQ terrorists/trainees were involved here and in various attacks throughout Iraq. You completely missed the point of my post.

8 posted on 08/19/2003 11:03:57 AM PDT by Coop (God bless our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: veronica
"I think we clearly are adapting......" Lt. Gen. Norton Schwartz,

I just thought:

If this guy gets a cold,

he'll have a "General Norton Schwartz Cough."

I'm sorry. But I couldn't help it.

9 posted on 08/19/2003 11:07:18 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I believe Victor Davis Hanson (it could be someone else, though) made this very point.
Go for what's easy. Better they're aiming at a well-armed soldier than aiming at civilians. Bush has, effectively, taken the fight to them.
Bring 'em on.
10 posted on 08/19/2003 11:08:12 AM PDT by dyed_in_the_wool (Leave Sid alone. -- John Lydon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coop
All the earmarks? Please. It was a truck bomb. On a soft target...

Like in Bali, Kenya, and other hits on US targets pre-9-11.

11 posted on 08/19/2003 11:08:51 AM PDT by veronica (http://www.petitiononline.com/KN50711/petition.html - Confirm Daniel Pipes to USIPF ......sign this!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
Or, if he had an Iraqi policeman assigned to him, would that Iraqi be...
(drum roll please)


Norton Schwartz Cop?

I know, not nearly as funny as yours.
12 posted on 08/19/2003 11:11:18 AM PDT by dyed_in_the_wool (Leave Sid alone. -- John Lydon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy; marron; mafree; Grampa Dave; pokerbuddy0
AQ is a shadow army of Saudi and Iran. The jihadis believe in the cause, the financiers direct their attacks to support their piratical oil war. Suppressing competitive oil production in Iraq increases OPEC profits for a minimal expense. Currently it's working better than the Iraqi sanctions regime of oil restrictions. And a whole lot better than telling Arafat to increase a bombing campaign in Israel which has profitable, but very short term effects in scaring up world oil prices.

The attack on the UN may be a miscalculation, or the impertinence of the true-believeing jihadis. Also, being a car bombing, I think it must be considered in light of the bombing of the Jordanian embassy a week or two ago.

13 posted on 08/19/2003 11:17:41 AM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: veronica
>> the Al Qaida insurgents favor truck and roadside bombs rather than engaging U.S. troops <<

Cowards.
14 posted on 08/19/2003 11:18:53 AM PDT by appalachian_dweller (Character is doing the right thing when nobody is looking. JC Watts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veronica
Like in Bali, Kenya, and other hits on US targets pre-9-11.

I have no idea what your point is here. Bali was two separate explosions, designed for maximum casualties. Kenya involved a car bomb at a hotel combined with SAM shots at an airliner. And the Nairobi and other (sorry, can't remember) embassies were obviously simultaneous attacks. Coordinated, fairly complex attacks. Earmark of Al Qaeda. Thanks for making my point for me.

15 posted on 08/19/2003 11:21:03 AM PDT by Coop (God bless our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: veronica
I thought Al Quada wasn't in Iraq? LOL. They are all in bed together and thus, will die together.

Bring it on!
16 posted on 08/19/2003 11:25:44 AM PDT by jonalvy44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jonalvy44
Smart to take the war where the enemy cannot resist the temptation to fight....now just do it till it is finished....God Bless our Troops!
17 posted on 08/19/2003 11:35:41 AM PDT by iopscusa (El Vaquero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
How can this be?

Didn't the Democrats tell us that there is absolutely no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda and that going into Iraq detracts from our War on Terror?

Could the Democrats possibly have been wrong or even lying?
18 posted on 08/19/2003 11:43:42 AM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Didn't the Democrats tell us that there is absolutely no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda and that going into Iraq detracts from our War on Terror?

The Dems, without skipping a beat, will now claim that the War on Iraq led to increased al Qaeda activity.

19 posted on 08/19/2003 11:45:11 AM PDT by dirtboy (Arnold's positions are like the alien in Predator - you can't see them but you know they're lethal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Coop
One quibble - al-Qaeda has used single truck bombs in the past, notably in Tunisia and in Chechnya, where second suicide bomber is unavailable or when the operational leadership feels that the operation may be compromised by waiting too long to carrying out the attack.
20 posted on 08/19/2003 11:46:43 AM PDT by Angelus Errare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dyed_in_the_wool
....or if he was from Medieval Europe witha cough, He'd fer sure have a ...

NORMAN Schwartz Cough

We should probably stop now.
21 posted on 08/19/2003 12:31:26 PM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: veronica
"In other words, a rallying cry, a place where foreign fighters are supposed to come to defend Islam, that now is not the time to operate." Name change anyone ... OPERATION FLYPAPER Bring it on.
22 posted on 08/19/2003 12:35:17 PM PDT by snooker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veronica
This is a classic manuver. Subvert the revolution and take control It happened in france and in Russia. In France various elements struggled for years and all lost to Napoleon. In Russia the Communists won.

Al Queda sees a weakness and is doing the rightthing to exploit that weakness. Reports from Iraq indicate America and GWB are much loved.

Al Queda will not prevail. they will be anniaiated by the Iraqui's.

23 posted on 08/19/2003 12:39:02 PM PDT by bert (Don't Panic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
We should probably stop now.

Agreed. Thanks for the laugh.
24 posted on 08/19/2003 12:41:14 PM PDT by dyed_in_the_wool (Leave Sid alone. -- John Lydon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
You are wrong. The Saudi's are not involved with Al Queda.

There were American Rat Congressmen involved with Saddam..... but America was not .

So it is with Saudi Arabia. There aqre disgruntled individuals but not the nation.

25 posted on 08/19/2003 12:41:39 PM PDT by bert (Don't Panic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
Or, if he had a bad case of acne while stationed in Germany, he'd be Norman Schwarz Kopf.
26 posted on 08/19/2003 12:55:59 PM PDT by dirtboy (Arnold's positions are like the alien in Predator - you can't see them but you know they're lethal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Angelus Errare
One quibble - al-Qaeda has used single truck bombs in the past, notably in Tunisia and in Chechnya, where second suicide bomber is unavailable or when the operational leadership feels that the operation may be compromised by waiting too long to carrying out the attack.

Certainly. But would you call that an earmark of Al Qaeda? I would not.

27 posted on 08/19/2003 1:22:38 PM PDT by Coop (God bless our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
ha ha ha

That's what I was thinking. Better over there, against our awesome military guys, than over here, against a bunch of whiny libruls who would beg to be allowed to join AQ.
28 posted on 08/19/2003 1:24:44 PM PDT by eyespysomething
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bert; Shermy
So it is with Saudi Arabia. There aqre disgruntled individuals but not the nation.

AQ is funded by money'ed Saudis, including royals. And among the royals are members of the regime. That much is public information. Until recently they were funding insurgencies in every country in Central Asia, the Balkans, the Philippines, India, Indonesia, and on and on. These insurgencies all had several elements in common: Saudi funding; Wahab missionary activity also paid by the Saudis, and they were all trained by Bin Ladin at his Afghan camps.

You cannot separate these insurgencies from Wahab missionary work, nor can you separate them from Saudi funding. That is what makes them almost by definition Al Qaeda. We call them AQ because they are Saudi funded, Wahab inspired, Bin Ladin trained, and because Saudi volunteers are prevalent.

When you read about volunteers and mercenaries fighting among the Chechens, for example, they are referring to Saudis in great number. The Chechen leadership has been taken over by Wahabs and the leadership is Saudi funded.

During the previous decade, our policy was to look the other way. If you will remember, Clinton and Albright were steadfast in their support of the Chechens, regardless of the atrocities committed. They led us to directly support every Saudi-backed insurgency where we could, or turn a blind eye where we could not back them.

It was only with the advent of Bush's new Russia policy that we backed away from the Chechens, which must be understood as backing away from the Saudis. This was the first break in our relationship with the Saudis. And then after 9/11 we declared war on every one of the Saudi backed insurgencies in Asia, leaving only the Balkan insurgencies unscathed. That is the unspoken story of the war on terror, which is that we have in effect declared war on the Saudis and have set about to annihilate every one of their operations.

All of this while publicly embracing them and declaring our undying friendship with the Saudis.

We have, out of respect for our long alliance with them, avoided a public break with them, and we have offered them the chance to repudiate AQ, and to back us. But they can't repudiate AQ without declaring war on the Wahab faith that undergirds it. And at this point they can't do that without civil war even among the royals. You cannot separate the Saudi royals from AQ. To say that AQ and Bin Ladin are not Saudi operations is, I think, to misunderstand the nature of the Saudi ruling clique.

The only point at which the Saudis have broken with AQ is to oppose their operations within the kingdom. This is similar to our nineties policy which was to merely slap at them, to re-direct their attacks away from us, while supporting or ignoring their operations throughout the rest of the world.

29 posted on 08/19/2003 2:10:28 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Either the Saudi regime must declare war upon itself, and rid itself of its AQ connections, or we must inevitably turn our sights on Riyadh. We can't win unless we cut off AQ's funding, and that we can't do unless the Saudis are in mortal fear.

We need to inspire mortal fear. They need to understand that, while a long insurgency in the Arabian peninsula would be no fun for us, that they would not themselves live to see it.
30 posted on 08/19/2003 2:15:43 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: marron; happygrl
Bump.
31 posted on 08/19/2003 3:35:05 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: bert
Al Queda will not prevail. they will be anniaiated by the Iraqui's.

The Iraqi's are in a position to see people who stand out like a sore thumb in their country. If it is Al Queda, they will face the same problem as Uday and Qusay did with informers.

This is especially true if water mains etc. continue to be targeted. Even if it isn't Al Queda, the Iraqui's will be looking for anyone capable of causing the problem. Water is almost worth more them than oil is right now.

32 posted on 08/19/2003 4:02:36 PM PDT by Tom Bombadil (Phil Keaggy is a great musician)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: veronica
But...but Iraq is not connected to AlQuada. No connection. So says Blix and the Democrats!!!! ..sarcasm out.
33 posted on 08/19/2003 8:54:50 PM PDT by Kath (Lubya Dubya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
MEMRI Special Dispatch Series - No. 476
Bin Laden, March 5,2003
The Rulers of the Arab States have Betrayed Allah
Our quarrel with the rulers is not a minor disagreement which can be solved, as we are speaking of the main principle of Islam: which states that 'there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is Allah's emissary.' These rulers have violated the very basis of this principle by allying themselves with unbelievers, by passing man-made laws and by approving and applying the infidel laws of the UN. http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP47603
34 posted on 08/20/2003 1:21:08 AM PDT by anglian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tom Bombadil
iraqis don't exactly have a good tract record when it comes to picking their leadership, I'd suspect they'll go with whoever kills the most westerners.. As will any other islamic nation.
35 posted on 08/20/2003 1:26:41 AM PDT by Monty22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Monty22
, I'd suspect they'll go with whoever kills the most westerners.. As will any other islamic nation.

You may have a point there. Solving the so called guerilla and terror problems in Iraq is going to require average Iraquis to do things that they aren't accustomed to doing......like risking their lives to report thugs.

36 posted on 08/20/2003 4:33:26 AM PDT by Tom Bombadil (Phil Keaggy is a great musician)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: veronica
BUMP
37 posted on 08/20/2003 5:25:13 AM PDT by truthandlife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veronica
U.S. now sees Al Qaida as leader of war effort in Iraq...

Whether it's al-Qaida or Palestinians or Saudis is irrelevant to the main point we should be taking from this article, which is, that MILITANT ISLAM sees Iraq as it's potential Waterloo, and fears that their goal of the return of the caliphate will become un-sellable when the "Arab street" sees what the embrace of democracy can bring in the way of peace and prosperity.

They're ALL going to be in Iraq, and the side which shows the most resolve wins.

38 posted on 08/20/2003 6:01:38 AM PDT by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson