Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: After the Surge - It Wasn't Supposed to Work
swhitebull    9/8/2007 12:05:42 AM
link Thoughtful piece from - appropriately named - the American Thinker swhitebull
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
swhitebull    Why it's called COUNTERTerrorism, Senator   10/4/2007 2:49:14 PM
From National Review's "The Tank":
 
 

Pulling al-Qaeda's Lynchpins in Iraq Is Counterterrorism, Senator   [Steve Schippert...]

In a major development in the fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq, the United States has disclosed the Baghdad capture of a major... who funneled over $100,000,000 into Iraq this summer alone to fund al-Qaeda terrorists and purchase weapons and explosives.

Iraqi and US forces have detained a man they believe received 100 million dollars this summer from Al-Qaeda sympathisers to hand out for "terrorist" operations in Iraq, the US military said Thursday.

"The 100 million was what our intelligence reports indicate he has received spanning several months this year," US military spokesman Sam Hymas told AFP. "That is all the unclassified information I can give you."

A statement from the military said the man, who was detained in the central Baghdad neighbourhood of Al-Kindi, was suspected of handing over 50,000 dollars a month to Al-Qaeda using his leather merchant business as a front.

"He is believed to have received one hundred million dollars this summer from terrorist supporters who cross the border illegally or fly into Iraq from Italy, Syria and Egypt," the military said.

He is suspected of travelling abroad himself to seek money for Al-Qaeda and of employing up to 50 extremists to help deliver bomb-making materials to insurgents attacking the US-led coalition.

This news comes on the heels of information released yesterday that US forces killed the al-Qaeda ..., 'Muthanna,' in an operation back on September 11. Hundreds of documents were obtained after his death. Among them was a list of about 500 men recruited to fight with al-Qaeda in Iraq. Among the names were 143 detailed biographies.

"Muthanna was the emir of Iraq and Syrian border area and he was a key facility of the movement of foreign terrorists once they crossed into Iraq from Syria. He worked closely with Syrian-based al Qaeda foreign terrorist facilitators," he said.

Bergner told a news conference that the information discovered included 143 biographies of foreign recruits, with personal data, photographs, their recruiters' names, date of entry into Iraq and the route they took.

"They came from a range of foreign countries that included Libya, Morocco, Syria, Algeria, Oman, Yemen, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Belgium, France and the United Kingdom," he said.

"In other documents that we found included a formal pledge from foreign terrorists who were committed to suicide operations," Bergner said.

One curious detail considering the release of news today that a major al-Qaeda financier has been capture: Among the documents obtained from Muthanna's person were detailed expense reports.

The captured al-Qaeda financier brought funds into Iraq from sources outside the country, using Syria as the primary conduit for the terrorists bringing in the resources. Muthanna was in charge of terrorist transport and ingress from Syria into Iraq. The financier was captured after the intelligence trove obtained after Muthanna's killing (presumably, as no specific timeframe for the capture was announced.)

What we have are two major al-Qaeda assets rolled up ? one still alive to tell more ? and the principal conduits for al-Qaeda's human and financial resources import infrastructure seriously downgraded.

And just a few short moths ago, Sen. Charles Schumer demanded that the United States withdraw our military forces to the periphery and vacate the heart of Iraq in order to "change our mission and focus it more narrowly on counterterrorism, [and go] after al Qaeda camps that might arise in Iraq."

Withdrawing and waiting for an unfettered al-Qaeda to establish camps and brutally dominate Iraqi cities while doing so is not counterterrorism. It's insanity and, furthermore, completely dismissive of the security, safety, and wellbeing of the Iraqi people. Dropping huts and buildings of a terrorist training camp are not signs of effective counterterrorism.

The latest developments above surely confirm, "This Is Counterterrorism, Senator." The elimination of safe havens, the high rate of AQI foot-soldiers dying in our offensive ground operations, and the rolling up of leadership elements cannot be mistaken for anything else. <

 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       10/4/2007 7:53:07 PM
swhitebull - AQI is being drawn, quartered, and eviscerated, their funds drying up, and no where to run but out of the country. Saudi imams issue fatwah to NOT to go to Iraq to become jihadis, Sunni leadership turning against AQI, lower US and Iraqi casualties in spite of stepped-up operations, violence down everywhere, AQI leadership decimated - therefore SURGE isn't working.
 
AQI was always just a small part of the insurgency; used by the native Sunnis to kill Americans.  When the Americans cut a deal with tribal leaders last fall, they were more than willing to hang AQI out to dry.  As for al Qaeda's main leadership, they are having remarkable success in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Suicide bombings have been ramped up in Pakistan and the Pakistani Army is reeling; at least according to this report from the Post:
 
Pakistan Seen Losing Fight Against Taliban And Al-Qaeda

By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, October 3, 2007; A01

PESHAWAR, Pakistan... -- Pakistan...'s government is losing its war against emboldened insurgent forces, giving al-Qaeda... and the Taliban... more territory in which to operate and allowing the groups to plot increasingly ambitious attacks, according to Pakistani and Western security officials.

The depth of the problem has become clear only in recent months, as regional peace deals have collapsed and the government has deferred developing a new strategy to defeat insurgents until Pakistan's leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf..., can resolve a political crisis that threatens his presidency.

Meanwhile, radical Islamic fighters who were evicted from Afghanistan... by the 2001 U.S.-led invasion have intensified a ruthless campaign that has consumed Pakistan's tribal areas and now affects its major cities. Military officials say the insurgents have enhanced their ability to threaten not only Pakistan but the United States and Europe... as well.

"They've had a chance to regroup and reorganize," said a Western military official in Pakistan. "They're well equipped. They're clearly getting training from somewhere. And they're using more and more advanced tactics."

Pakistan's military..., on the other hand, is considering pulling back from the fight -- at least partially -- in the face of mounting losses, the official said.

"They're not trained for a counterinsurgency. It's not their number one priority. It's not even their number two priority," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "These are the reasons things aren't going their way."

Pakistani military officials concede they are searching for a new strategy now that the old one has gone awry. But with Musharraf struggling to stay in office and expected to soon step down from the military, no decisions are likely until questions over the country's leadership are settled.

"The federal government is busy with its problem of legitimacy. Getting Musharraf elected for another five years -- that is keeping everything on hold," said retired Brig. Gen. Mehmood Shah, who until 2005 was a top security official in the tribal areas.

In recent years, Pakistan has relied on deals with insurgents to keep them from launching offensives. But two such agreements -- in North and South Waziristan... -- fell apart this summer when insurgent leaders abruptly announced they were backing out.

The main criticism of the deals, both in Pakistan and in the West, had been that they gave al-Qaeda and the Taliban sanctuary in which to train, plot and launch attacks.

 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       10/4/2007 8:55:10 PM
Add to that the fact that attacks are up 30% in Afghanistan and Karzai wants to cut a deal with the Taliban.  Could Iraq have been a diversion all along for al Qaeda, with their eye on the real prize in Pakistan?  Send in your undesierables (Zarqwai) and second-stringers to cause mayhem and keep the Americans busy in Iraq and re-build your strength in your real power base in Pakistan/Afghanistan. Just a theory, I'm sure bin Laden wants American troops driven from Iraq, but I'm also sure he probably didn't shed any tears at the passing of Saddam, and al Qaeda needed the respite Bush gave them, to rebuild their capabilities.
 
Yes, I'm sure *that's* it:  Al Qaeda has been playing us for suckers in Iraq for the last four years, and now they've revealed their true objective:  Pakistan!  Soon it will fall into their hands like a ripe pomegranate!  Ohhh, those insidious b@stards!
 
Keep flopping around like a crappie out of water, looking desparately for every conceivable cloud to cover up any glimpse of a silver lining.
 
You are sooo boring.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull       10/4/2007 9:17:05 PM


swhitebull - AQI is being drawn, quartered, and eviscerated, their funds drying up, and no where to run but out of the country. Saudi imams issue fatwah to NOT to go to Iraq to become jihadis, Sunni leadership turning against AQI, lower US and Iraqi casualties in spite of stepped-up operations, violence down everywhere, AQI leadership decimated - therefore SURGE isn't working.

 

AQI was always just a small part of the insurgency; used by the native Sunnis to kill Americans.  When the Americans cut a deal with tribal leaders last fall, they were more than willing to hang AQI out to dry.  As for al Qaeda's main leadership, they are having remarkable success in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Suicide bombings have been ramped up in Pakistan and the Pakistani Army is reeling; at least according to this report from the Post:

 

Pakistan Seen Losing Fight Against Taliban And Al-Qaeda


By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, October 3, 2007; A01


PESHAWAR, Pakistan... -- Pakistan...'s government is losing its war against emboldened insurgent forces, giving al-Qaeda... and the Taliban... more territory in which to operate and allowing the groups to plot increasingly ambitious attacks, according to Pakistani and Western security officials.


The depth of the problem has become clear only in recent months, as regional peace deals have collapsed and the government has deferred developing a new strategy to defeat insurgents until Pakistan's leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf..., can resolve a political crisis that threatens his presidency.


Meanwhile, radical Islamic fighters who were evicted from Afghanistan... by the 2001 U.S.-led invasion have intensified a ruthless campaign that has consumed Pakistan's tribal areas and now affects its major cities. Military officials say the insurgents have enhanced their ability to threaten not only Pakistan but the United States and Europe... as well.


"They've had a chance to regroup and reorganize," said a Western military official in Pakistan. "They're well equipped. They're clearly getting training from somewhere. And they're using more and more advanced tactics."


Pakistan's military..., on the other hand, is considering pulling back from the fight -- at least partially -- in the face of mounting losses, the official said.


"They're not trained for a counterinsurgency. It's not their number one priority. It's not even their number two priority," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "These are the reasons things aren't going their way."


Pakistani military officials concede they are searching for a new strategy now that the old one has gone awry. But with Musharraf struggling to stay in office and expected to soon step down from the military, no decisions are likely until questions over the country's leadership are settled.


"The federal government is busy with its problem of legitimacy. Getting Musharraf elected for another five years -- that is keeping everything on hold," said retired Brig. Gen. Mehmood Shah, who until 2005 was a top security official in the tribal areas.


In recent years, Pakistan has relied on deals with insurgents to keep them from launching offensives. But two such agreements -- in North and Quote    Reply


swhitebull    General Odierno Speaks   10/5/2007 7:25:59 AM
Iraq: Signs of Success  
By Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu...
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, October 05, 2007

 

Lieutenant General Ray Odierno, commander of the Multi-National Corps in Iraq, appeared in Washington this week to deliver his assessment of the military and political progress in Iraq.

Cautiously upbeat, Odierno noted some signs of major progress. For example, he pointed out that violence has dropped significantly, particularly in Baghdad, always al-Qaeda in Iraq’s (AQI) major target area because of the capital’s international media visibility. Earlier, al-Qaeda terrorized the city with murderous abandon. No longer. Baghdad neighborhoods that had been under AQI's Taliban-like control for more than a year have now been liberated. Seen against the backdrop of these developments, the fact that AQI's recent Ramadan offensive was a singular failure is proof of the organization‘s growing weakness.

Outside of Baghdad, too, there are signs of improvement. Cities that were once wracked by constant fighting -- Ramadi, Fallujah, and al-Qaim -- have been freed from al-Qaeda control. An American trooper stationed in Ramadi, once the scene of especially brutal fighting, recently told Odierno that today he could today through the streets "naked" (i.e., without a weapon) and not fear attack. Before the surge, that would have been unthinkable.

A major reason for this dramatic reversal is that Sunni tribal sheiks have come to recognize that their future lies with the government of Iraq, not with al Qaeda. Odierno pointed out that while al-Qaeda is still dangerous, it is "losing its support" because of its "indiscriminate targeting of civilians." The endless stream of foreign suicide bombers exploding automobiles in crowded marketplaces finally convinced the Sunni sheiks that all AQI has to offer Iraqis is a legacy of death. That should come as no surprise. Reports coming out of AQI occupied cities and from Baghdad neighborhoods detail unspeakable horrors inflicted upon the hapless populace in the name of Wahabbist ideology.

With the weakening of al-Qaeda, the reconstruction effort has taken off in earnest. In some outlying areas, troops are no longer fighting a counter-insurgency, and can focus on their efforts on rebuilding the country. This is a significant departure from the intense combat that raged in some of the contested Sunni areas as recently as six to eight months ago.

But it is too early to declare victory. Odierno cautioned that America is not yet where we want to be in that country. "It is very tempting to overestimate progress," the general said. He warned that "irreversible momentum" toward victory will come only with time, patience, and continued support from the American people.

According to Odierno, it will not be enough to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq. Also required is a deliberate, careful shift of security responsibilities to Iraqi forces, something that has been happening on an accelerated basis as a result of the spring-summer reinforcement of troops through the surge. Along with military stability, strong economic growth, particularly in the private employment and start-up business fields, is vital to success. Most important, Iraq’s ethnic and religious communities will have to choose between further bloodshed and political reconciliation.

In Odierno's opinion, the Iraqi people are already in the process of making that choice, and they have decided on peace. By way of illustration, he cited the sheiks in the highly fractious Sunni areas. "The sheiks have made their decision to support the Iraqi government," Odierno explained, “and we are now seeing similar decisions at the grass roots level in Shi'a neighborhoods, particularly in Baghdad's notorious Sadr City.”

Equally critical to the current success is the bond that has been forged between American troops and their Iraqi counterparts. Odierno made a special point of praising the Iraqi security units that moved six to seven additional battalions into Baghdad to coincide with the surge. At least one joint security position has been up and running successfully in Sadr City and "there is an excellent relationship between the Iraqi security forces and U.S. for

 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       10/5/2007 4:07:51 PM

Add to that the fact that attacks are up 30% in Afghanistan and Karzai wants to cut a deal with the Taliban.  Could Iraq have been a diversion all along for al Qaeda, with their eye on the real prize in Pakistan?  Send in your undesierables (Zarqwai) and second-stringers to cause mayhem and keep the Americans busy in Iraq and re-build your strength in your real power base in Pakistan/Afghanistan. Just a theory, I'm sure bin Laden wants American troops driven from Iraq, but I'm also sure he probably didn't shed any tears at the passing of Saddam, and al Qaeda needed the respite Bush gave them, to rebuild their capabilities.

 

Yes, I'm sure *that's* it:  Al Qaeda has been playing us for suckers in Iraq for the last four years, and now they've revealed their true objective:  Pakistan!  Soon it will fall into their hands like a ripe pomegranate!  Ohhh, those insidious b@stards!

 

Keep flopping around like a crappie out of water, looking desparately for every conceivable cloud to cover up any glimpse of a silver lining.

 

You are sooo boring.

 

 

You don't have to read my posts DJ if you don't like them, let alone respond to them.  I'm just arguing a theory; if al Qaeda were truly hurt and badly losing in Iraq and that is the central front in the GWOT (to them) then why is bin Laden arguing for the overthrow of Musharaf and wasting valued suicide bombers on the Pakistani Army when they should be sent to Iraq? 

The Pakistani Army wasn't bothering AQ and its affiliates in Waziristan, it was the tribes who broke the ceasefire, and urged on by bin Laden.  You could have argued that AQI has been beaten so badly in Iraq that even bin Laden thinks it is a lost cause, and figures his troops can't stand up to American forces and considers Pakistani troops a softer target.  That's a legitimate argument and one you could have argued; instead you chose to insult me, in a typical knee-jerk reaction...now who's boring?

 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       10/5/2007 4:24:44 PM


You don't have to read my posts DJ if you don't like them, let alone respond to them.  I'm just arguing a theory; if al Qaeda were truly hurt and badly losing in Iraq and that is the central front in the GWOT (to them) then why is bin Laden arguing for the overthrow of Musharaf and wasting valued suicide bombers on the Pakistani Army when they should be sent to Iraq? 

The Pakistani Army wasn't bothering AQ and its affiliates in Waziristan, it was the tribes who broke the ceasefire, and urged on by bin Laden.  You could have argued that AQI has been beaten so badly in Iraq that even bin Laden thinks it is a lost cause, and figures his troops can't stand up to American forces and considers Pakistani troops a softer target.  That's a legitimate argument and one you could have argued; instead you chose to insult me, in a typical knee-jerk reaction...now who's boring?

I don't agree with your assessment of the loss in Iraq by al Qaeda - they bet heavily on their Sunni brothers to join in and make Iraq a Vietnam like experience for the USA.  They lost out mainly because they turned out to be more brutal than even Saddam - for example the forced marrage issue that split the western Sunni tribes out from al Qaeda.  This was a bad miscalculation on their part and may have cost them the war.
OBL has always been against Musharraf.  He has found loads of support from radicals inside the ISI.  It is no secret that he wanted to overthrow the Paki regime even before Iraq.  His efforts with the Taliban and Afghanistan are representative of his direct power base and logistical center.  He must protect that or lose.
 
Much of the Paki violence has little to do with OBL but more with an internal power struggle between Musharraf and his former political rivals such as Bhutto.  It has mixed in some radicals who have also gone after Musharraf's biggest backers - the Chinese.  This has not set well with Beijing who supplies the Paki armed forces with the majority of their high tech gear including nuke technology.  Thus, we see the Paki Army reacting - and naturally so - because it threatens their life-line to advanced weaponry.

All in all - it is a mess but Musharraf seems to be firmly in place with the Army backing him.
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       10/5/2007 4:28:23 PM






swhitebull - AQI is being drawn, quartered, and eviscerated, their funds drying up, and no where to run but out of the country. Saudi imams issue fatwah to NOT to go to Iraq to become jihadis, Sunni leadership turning against AQI, lower US and Iraqi casualties in spite of stepped-up operations, violence down everywhere, AQI leadership decimated - therefore SURGE isn't working.



 



AQI was always just a small part of the insurgency; used by the native Sunnis to kill Americans.  When the Americans cut a deal with tribal leaders last fall, they were more than willing to hang AQI out to dry.  As for al Qaeda's main leadership, they are having remarkable success in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Suicide bombings have been ramped up in Pakistan and the Pakistani Army is reeling; at least according to this report from the Post:



 



Pakistan Seen Losing Fight Against Taliban And Al-Qaeda




By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, October 3, 2007; A01




PESHAWAR, Pakistan... -- Pakistan...'s government is losing its war against emboldened insurgent forces, giving al-Qaeda... and the Taliban... more territory in which to operate and allowing the groups to plot increasingly ambitious attacks, according to Pakistani and Western security officials.




The depth of the problem has become clear only in recent months, as regional peace deals have collapsed and the government has deferred developing a new strategy to defeat insurgents until Pakistan's leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf..., can resolve a political crisis that threatens his presidency.




Meanwhile, radical Islamic fighters who were evicted from Afghanistan... by the 2001 U.S.-led invasion have intensified a ruthless campaign that has consumed Pakistan's tribal areas and now affects its major cities. Military officials say the insurgents have enhanced their ability to threaten not only Pakistan but the United States and Europe... as well.




"They've had a chance to regroup and reorganize," said a Western military official in Pakistan. "They're well equipped. They're clearly getting training from somewhere. And they're using more and more advanced tactics."




Pakistan's military..., on the other hand, is considering pulling back from the fight -- at least partially -- in the face of mounting losses, the official said.




"They're not trained for a counterinsurgency. It's not their number one priority. It's not even their number two priority," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "These are the reasons things aren't going their way."




Pakistani military officials concede they are searching for a new strategy now that the old one has gone awry. But with Musharraf struggling to stay in office and expected to soon step down from the military, no decisions are likely until questions over the country's leadership are settled.




"The federal government is busy with its problem of legitimacy. Getting Musharraf elected for another five years -- that is keeping everything on hold," said retired Brig. Gen. Mehmood Shah, who until 2005 was a top security official in the tribal areas.




In recent years, Pakistan has relied on deal

 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       10/5/2007 4:35:41 PM




Add to that the fact that attacks are up 30% in Afghanistan and Karzai wants to cut a deal with the Taliban.  Could Iraq have been a diversion all along for al Qaeda, with their eye on the real prize in Pakistan?  Send in your undesierables (Zarqwai) and second-stringers to cause mayhem and keep the Americans busy in Iraq and re-build your strength in your real power base in Pakistan/Afghanistan. Just a theory, I'm sure bin Laden wants American troops driven from Iraq, but I'm also sure he probably didn't shed any tears at the passing of Saddam, and al Qaeda needed the respite Bush gave them, to rebuild their capabilities.



 



Yes, I'm sure *that's* it:  Al Qaeda has been playing us for suckers in Iraq for the last four years, and now they've revealed their true objective:  Pakistan!  Soon it will fall into their hands like a ripe pomegranate!  Ohhh, those insidious b@stards!



 



Keep flopping around like a crappie out of water, looking desparately for every conceivable cloud to cover up any glimpse of a silver lining.



 



You are sooo boring.



 



 



You don't have to read my posts DJ if you don't like them, let alone respond to them.  I'm just arguing a theory; if al Qaeda were truly hurt and badly losing in Iraq and that is the central front in the GWOT (to them) then why is bin Laden arguing for the overthrow of Musharaf and wasting valued suicide bombers on the Pakistani Army when they should be sent to Iraq? 

The Pakistani Army wasn't bothering AQ and its affiliates in Waziristan, it was the tribes who broke the ceasefire, and urged on by bin Laden.  You could have argued that AQI has been beaten so badly in Iraq that even bin Laden thinks it is a lost cause, and figures his troops can't stand up to American forces and considers Pakistani troops a softer target.  That's a legitimate argument and one you could have argued; instead you chose to insult me, in a typical knee-jerk reaction...now who's boring?



 
It's still you.  I doubt anyone buys the "I'm just arguing a theory" line; I certainly don't.  You constantly, prolifically, vociferously argue a theory, any theory, every theory that you can generate as long as it is negative toward current American GWOT-related activities--whether in Iraq or elsewhere.  The bias is unmistakable.  I wonder if you let it color your professional analysis at work as much as you do your recreational analysis here on SP?

 
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       10/5/2007 5:07:15 PM
"I don't deny that there is progress, obviously there is.  I just question whether it is tied to the Surge or not."

Clearly the change in tactics made a great difference.
 
"The increase in insurgent casualties began last fall, peaked before the surge began, and has decreased slowly ever since...yes or no?  If yes, does that mean the surge was effective or not, if not then what is effective in killing insurgents (i.e. better trained Iraqi troops, reduction in corruption, the Sunni Awakening, AQI lost their funding, etc.)."

It's nice to pin these events on one thing but the reality is it's a combination of things.  Part success by us, part miscalculation and failure by the Insurgents.
 
"If no does that mean the Surge is effective and if so then why is not more pressure brought on Iraqi politicians to craft compromises before the troop reduction begins"

Don't jump ahead of the curve.  These questions are being proposed and we should see some reaction/results.

"why isn't Baghdad more secure"

Why isn't Detroit more secure?  It takes time for the other elements involved to work things out - both legal and otherwise.  Do not be fooled into thinking that all the violence reported is "insurgent" as compared to the classic corruption and criminal elements. 

"why can't refugees and IDPs return to their homes, etc."

Timing is everything and information is key.  The timing is moving closer and the information has been playing against the bad guys.  Let's keep the ball rolling in that direction.
 
"Can the Shiaization of Baghdad be halted or reversed"

WHY?  The Sunni were a minority before this - why give them a larger role than they deserve?  It is difficult to hold down 80% of your population unless you have a brutal government.  You want the Sunni's back?

"can Sadr dismantle his militias, etc."

Will the Iranians let him is a better question.
 
"These are the questions we should be asking; yes it is well and good that casualties are down, but now political progress has to be made or all the effort will be wasted."

Political progress is made after progress in the battle front.  The lessons of similar nations in historical context should indicate that they need to pick up the security first then move toward political issues.

"Do you understand my point, you don't have to agree with me, but this isn't about scoring political points."

Like the others here - I often question that.

"The post about Pakistan was an honest question, not a diversion.  If al Qaeda claims that Iraq is central to its war against the US/West, then why is it involved now in an insurgency in Pakistan; wouldn't those troops be better served in Iraq, especially if they are losing?"

NOT related at all.  The fight in Pakistan has been ongoing before Iraq and will most likely be going after we have left.  The ISI and Paki radicals have always had a grudge against Musharraf.  They have tried - what 8 times in the past year to kill him?  Don't be confused with what happens in Islamabad and what happens in Baghdad.

"Or is it a sign that they have written off Iraq?"

No - AQ is fighting for its life in Pakistan - and fighting to score points in Iraq.

"What is bin Laden's plan or does he have a plan?  Understanding one's enemy is a sure way to defeat him, that's all I'm saying."

Survive and recruit.  Expand after devastating losses.  His pre-911 assasination of the Taliban rival Ahmed Shah Massoud  in North Afghanistan should be a clear indication of his plan.  He has been fighting a losing battle and he is reacting that way.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy