au1929 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:MM Wrote, and Ican emphasized:
Quote:
4.The terrorists and Insurgents would win,thereby having a huge base to conduct operations from,and they would attack Europe,Israel,the United STates,and any other country that doesnt follow their version of Islam.
And yet, both of you have been wrong about nearly everything about this war (maybe MM less so than Ican because he doesn't spend as much time talking about it). So you need to give some good reasons why this would happen, other than just assert it; because the assertions of war supporters have a very poor track record over the last three years, whereas those of us who have been against it have been completely validated in our views.
Cycloptichorn
CYC
I would be interested to hear your thoughts regarding what the outcome of an insurgent win would be.
To begin, do you really think that if we left, the insurgents would 'win?' Win over who? The Shiites?
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:au1929 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:MM Wrote, and Ican emphasized:
Quote:
4.The terrorists and Insurgents would win,thereby having a huge base to conduct operations from,and they would attack Europe,Israel,the United STates,and any other country that doesnt follow their version of Islam.
And yet, both of you have been wrong about nearly everything about this war (maybe MM less so than Ican because he doesn't spend as much time talking about it). So you need to give some good reasons why this would happen, other than just assert it; because the assertions of war supporters have a very poor track record over the last three years, whereas those of us who have been against it have been completely validated in our views.
Cycloptichorn
CYC
I would be interested to hear your thoughts regarding what the outcome of an insurgent win would be.
To begin, do you really think that if we left, the insurgents would 'win?' Win over who? The Shiites?
Cycloptichorn
I will rephrase the question. What do you think will happen if the insurgents are sucessful in getting the US to pack up lock stock and barrel and leave in say the next six months. Despite the Iraqi government being unable to control the situation
MM Wrote, and Ican emphasized:
Quote:
4.The terrorists and Insurgents would win,thereby having a huge base to conduct operations from,and they would attack Europe,Israel,the United STates,and any other country that doesnt follow their version of Islam.
And yet, both of you have been wrong about nearly everything about this war (maybe MM less so than Ican because he doesn't spend as much time talking about it). So you need to give some good reasons why this would happen, other than just assert it; because the assertions of war supporters have a very poor track record over the last three years, whereas those of us who have been against it have been completely validated in our views.
Cycloptichorn
CIA Director Michael Hayden gave testimony that strikes me as refreshingly frank on Thursday. In fact, it is ironic that the supposedly public and straightforward politicians and cabinet members, such as Cheney and Rice, mostly retail fairy tales to the US public. But the chief of the country's clandestine intelligence agency? He's telling it like it is. He revealed that daily attacks in Iraq are up from 70 in January to 100 last spring after the Samarra bombing, and then to 180 a day last month. He also said that there were only 1300 foreign al-Qaeda volunteers fighting in Iraq, whereas the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement was "in the low tens of thousands" strong. If there are 40,000 guerrillas, then "al-Qaeda" is only 3.25 percent of the "insurgency." That is why Dick Cheney's and other's Chicken Little talk about al-Qaeda taking over Sunni Arab Iraq is overblown, at least at the moment. Most Iraqi fundamentalists are Salafis, which is a different sort of movement than al-Qaeda. And the Baathists and ex-military and tribal cells cannot be disregarded by any means.
Violence in Iraq Called Increasingly Complex
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 17, 2006; A19
Attacks in Iraq reached a high of approximately 180 a day last month, reflecting an increasingly complicated conflict that includes sectarian clashes of Sunni and Shiite militias on top of continuing strikes by insurgents, criminal gangs and al-Qaeda terrorists, according to the directors of the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency.
"No single narrative is sufficient to explain all the violence we see in Iraq today," Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the CIA director, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday.
Attempting to describe the enemy, Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the DIA director, listed "Iraqi nationalists, ex-Baathists, former military, angry Sunni, Jihadists, foreign fighters and al-Qaeda," who create an "overlapping, complex and multi-polar Sunni insurgent and terrorist environment." He added that "Shia militias and Shia militants, some Kurdish pesh merga, and extensive criminal activity further contribute to violence, instability and insecurity."
In unusually harsh terms, the two intelligence directors spelled out how quickly the violence in Iraq has escalated this year, from about 70 attacks a day in January to about 100 a day in May and then to last month's figure. "Violence in Iraq continues to increase in scope, complexity, and lethality" despite operations by the Iraqi government and the U.S.-led coalition, Maples said. He described "an atmosphere of fear and hardening sectarianism which is empowering militias and vigilante groups, hastening middle-class exodus, and shaking confidence in government and security forces."
"The longer this goes on, the less controlled the violence is, the more the violence devolves down to the neighborhood level," Hayden added. "The center disappears, and normal people acting not irrationally end up acting like extremists."
Although the Bush administration continues to emphasize the role of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Maples described the current situation as "mostly an intra-Arab struggle to determine how power and authority will be distributed," with or without the U.S. presence. Al-Qaeda and foreign terrorist numbers were put at roughly 1,300, while Hayden, pressed by senators, estimated the number of insurgents in the "low tens of thousands." Maples estimated the number of Iraqi insurgents, including militias, at 20,000 to 30,000, and said there are many more who supply support.
Asked about the brazen kidnapping in Baghdad on Tuesday of some 100 employees in the Sunni-led Ministry of Education by an apparent Shiite group in commando uniforms using Interior Ministry vehicles, Hayden said the CIA station chief in Iraq said it showed that the battlefield "is descending into smaller and smaller groups fighting over smaller and smaller issues over smaller and smaller pieces of territory."
Hayden said he believes that the turning point in the fighting came in February with the bombing of the Askariya mosque in Samarra. The destruction of the revered Shiite site by Sunni-based al-Qaeda terrorists unleashed what Hayden described as "historic forces" that have created "the satanic level of violence" of today.
"Sectarian violence now presents the greatest immediate threat to Iraq's stability and future," he said.
Underlying the sectarian fighting are not only deep-rooted religious differences, but also the more recent political history of Shiite suffering under the iron rule of Saddam Hussein and his Sunni- and Baathist Party-dominated government.
The Shiites, who make up more than half of Iraq's population, now want to make certain they control the new Iraqi government and to assure themselves that the Hussein group never regains power. "This fear of a return to Baathism is almost palpable among Shia elites," Hayden said.
As a result, the Shiites have maintained control of the Interior Ministry and the police. "Militias often operate under protection or approval of Iraqi police [when they] attack suspected Sunni insurgents and Sunni civilians," Hayden said. In addition, "radical Shia militias and splinter groups stoke the violence."
At the same time, Hayden said, there are fissures within the Shiite groups, and their "power struggles . . . make it difficult for Shia leaders to take actions that might ease Sunni fears." Adding to the problem is Iran, which is supporting even competing Shiite factions. "Iranian involvement with the Shia militias of all stripes . . . has been quite a new development," Hayden said.
22 August, 1920
A Report on Mesopotamia by T.E. Lawrence
Ex.-Lieut.-Col. T.E. Lawrence,
The Sunday Times, 22 August 1920
[Mr. Lawrence, whose organization and direction of the Hedjaz against the Turks was one of the outstanding romances of the war, has written this article at our request in order that the public may be fully informed of our Mesopotamian commitments.]
The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are to-day not far from a disaster.
The sins of commission are those of the British civil authorities in Mesopotamia (especially of three 'colonels') who were given a free hand by London. They are controlled from no Department of State, but from the empty space which divides the Foreign Office from te India Office. They availed themselves of the necessary discretion of war-time to carry over their dangerous independence into times of peace. They contest every suggestion of real self- government sent them from home. A recent proclamation about autonomy circulated with unction from Baghdad was drafted and published out there in a hurry, to forestall a more liberal statement in preparation in London, 'Self-determination papers' favourable to England were extorted in Mesopotamia in 1919 by official pressure, by aeroplane demonstrations, by deportations to India.
The Cabinet cannot disclaim all responsibility. They receive little more news than the public: they should have insisted on more, and better. they have sent draft after draft of reinforcements, without enquiry. When conditions became too bad to endure longer, they decided to send out as High commissioner the original author of the present system, with a conciliatory message to the Arabs that his heart and policy have completely changed.*
Yet our published policy has not changed, and does not need changing. It is that there has been a deplorable contrast between our profession and our practice. We said we went to Mesopotamia to defeat Turkey. We said we stayed to deliver the Arabs from the oppression of the Turkish Government, and to make available for the world its resources of corn and oil. We spent nearly a million men and nearly a thousand million of money to these ends. This year we are spending ninety-two thousand men and fifty millions of money on the same objects.
Our government is worse than the old Turkish system. They kept fourteen thousand local conscripts embodied, and killed a yearly average of two hundred Arabs in maintaining peace. We keep ninety thousand men, with aeroplanes, armoured cars, gunboats, and armoured trains. We have killed about ten thousand Arabs in this rising this summer. We cannot hope to maintain such an average: it is a poor country, sparsely peopled; but Abd el Hamid would applaud his masters, if he saw us working. We are told the object of the rising was political, we are not told what the local people want. It may be what the Cabinet has promised them. A Minister in the House of Lords said that we must have so many troops because the local people will not enlist. On Friday the Government announce the death of some local levies defending their British officers, and say that the services of these men have not yet been sufficiently recognized because they are too few (adding the characteristic Baghdad touch that they are men of bad character). There are seven thousand of them, just half the old Turkish force of occupation. Properly officered and distributed, they would relieve half our army there. Cromer controlled Egypt's six million people with five thousand British troops; Colonel Wilson fails to control Mesopotamia's three million people with ninety thousand troops.
We have not reached the limit of our military commitments. Four weeks ago the staff in Mesopotamia drew up a memorandum asking for four more divisions. I believe it was forwarded to the War Office, which has now sent three brigades from India. If the North-West Frontier cannot be further denuded, where is the balance to come from? Meanwhile, our unfortunate troops, Indian and British, under hard conditions of climate and supply, are policing an immense area, paying dearly every day in lives for the wilfully wrong policy of the civil administration in Baghdad. General Dyer was relieved of his command in India for a much smaller error, but the responsibility in this case is not on the Army, which has acted only at the request of the civil authorities. The War Office has made every effort to reduce our forces, but the decisions of the Cabinet have been against them.
The Government in Baghdad have been hanging Arabs in that town for political offences, which they call rebellion. The Arabs are not at war with us. Are these illegal executions to provoke the Arabs to reprisals on the three hundred British prisoners they hold? And, if so, is it that their punishment may be more severe, or is it to persuade our other troops to fight to the last?
We say we are in Mesopotamia to develop it for the benefit of the world. all experts say that the labour supply is the ruling factor in its development. How far will the killing of ten thousand villagers and townspeople this summer hinder the production of wheat, cotton, and oil? How long will we permit millions of pounds, thousands of Imperial troops, and tens of thousands of Arabs to be sacrificed on behalf of colonial administration which can benefit nobody but its administrators?
*Sir Percy Cox was to return as High Commissioner in October, 1920 to form a provisional Government.
Return to World War I Document Archive
Comments, corrections and suggestions are welcome:
Richard Hacken (hacken @ byu.edu)
or Jane Plotke (cd078 @ gwpda.org).
The World War I Document Archive
on the server of the Brigham Young University Library
has been visited times since February 1996 .
Last Updated: February 10, 1996.
Cycloptichorn wrote:MM Wrote, and Ican emphasized:
Quote:
4.The terrorists and Insurgents would win,thereby having a huge base to conduct operations from,and they would attack Europe,Israel,the United STates,and any other country that doesnt follow their version of Islam.
And yet, both of you have been wrong about nearly everything about this war (maybe MM less so than Ican because he doesn't spend as much time talking about it). So you need to give some good reasons why this would happen, other than just assert it; because the assertions of war supporters have a very poor track record over the last three years, whereas those of us who have been against it have been completely validated in our views.
Cycloptichorn
About what for instance do you think either MM or ican has been wrong?
I predicted a decline in the rate of killings of Iraqi non-combatants during 2006.
Even though 2006 is not over, I expect I will be wrong when it is over.
You alleged that al-Qaeda two months after the US invasion of Afghanistan had not established a rapidly growing sanctuary in Iraq--comparable to the 1996 to 2001 growth rate it achieved in Afghanistan--in which to train more terrorists.
You were wrong.
I repeatedly alleged the war in Iraq would be won, if the US:
(1) changed its tactics to include a significant covert effort to exterminate al-Qaeda in Iraq, while risking killing Iraqi non-combatants near them; and,
(2) focused its overt effort to seal Iraq's borders and train Iraqis to defend Iraqi non-combatants.
Since those changes have not been made, I don't know whether I'm right or wrong.
You alleged that the terrorist problem would be solved if the US negotiated with governments that allow al-Qaeda sanctuary or support to stop providing al-Qaeda sanctuary and support.
You could validly claim that since such negotiations haven't been tried yet, you don't know whether you are right or wrong.
I alleged that al-Qaeda would resume its terrorist attacks on Americans, if we left Iraq prematurely before the Iraq government was able to prevent Iraq from again being used as an al-Qaeda sanctuary for training terrorists to attack Americans.
You alleged that that would not happen.
Since the US has not yet left Iraq prematurely, neither of us knows which of these allegations is true.
As we see from this Al Qaeda plays a very minor role in Iraq and could be easily expelled if the Sunnis and Shiites make up and stop fighting. This, unfortunately, will not happen in the near future.
Xingu, you continue to post psuedology (i.e., falsities or lies ... while all lies are falsities not all falsities are lies)!
Al-Qaeda played a major role in igniting the Sunni-Shia war in Iraq, and al-Qaeda plays a major role in maintaining the Sunni-Shia war in Iraq . Al Qaeda accomplishes this by committing selected extremely enraging atrocites against the Sunni and against the Shia, such that the ones against the Shia are made to appear done by Sunni and the ones against the Sunny are made to appear done by Shia.
Quote:
www.dni.gov/release_letter_101105.html
A summary of Letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi July 9, 2005.
The war in Iraq is central to al Qa'ida's global jihad.
The war will not end with an American departure.
Their strategic vision is one of inevitable conflict with a call by al-Zawahiri for political action equal to military action.
Popular support must be maintained at least until jihadist rule has been established.
More than half the struggle is taking place "in the battlefield of the media."
Quote:Hayden said he believes that the turning point in the fighting came in February with the bombing of the Askariya mosque in Samarra. The destruction of the revered Shiite site by Sunni-based al-Qaeda terrorists unleashed what Hayden described as "historic forces" that have created "the satanic level of violence" of today.
...
Quote:CIA Director Michael Hayden gave testimony
...
there were only 1300 foreign al-Qaeda volunteers fighting in Iraq, whereas the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement was "in the low tens of thousands" strong.
...
Only 19 al-Qaeda terrorists perpetrated 9/11. How many 9/11s could 1300 foreign al-Qaeda volunteers perpetrate? How many bombings of Shia and Sunni mosques could 1300 foreign al-Qaeda volunteers perpetrate? How many bombings of Shia and Sunni crowds could 1300 foreign al-Qaeda volunteers perpetrate?
Quote:Violence in Iraq Called Increasingly Complex
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 17, 2006; A19
Attacks in Iraq reached a high of approximately 180 a day last month, reflecting an increasingly complicated conflict that includes sectarian clashes of Sunni and Shiite militias on top of continuing strikes by insurgents, criminal gangs and al-Qaeda terrorists, according to the directors of the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency.
"No single narrative is sufficient to explain all the violence we see in Iraq today," Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the CIA director, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday.
Attempting to describe the enemy, Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the DIA director, listed "Iraqi nationalists, ex-Baathists, former military, angry Sunni, Jihadists, foreign fighters and al-Qaeda," who create an "overlapping, complex and multi-polar Sunni insurgent and terrorist environment." He added that "Shia militias and Shia militants, some Kurdish pesh merga, and extensive criminal activity further contribute to violence, instability and insecurity."
...
Hayden said he believes that the turning point in the fighting came in February with the bombing of the Askariya mosque in Samarra. The destruction of the revered Shiite site by Sunni-based al-Qaeda terrorists unleashed what Hayden described as "historic forces" that have created "the satanic level of violence" of today.
"Sectarian violence now presents the greatest immediate threat to Iraq's stability and future," he said.
...
xingu wrote:As we see from this Al Qaeda plays a very minor role in Iraq and could be easily expelled if the Sunnis and Shiites make up and stop fighting. This, unfortunately, will not happen in the near future.
Xingu, you continue to post psuedology (i.e., falsities or lies ... while all lies are falsities not all falsities are lies)!
Al-Qaeda played a major role in igniting the Sunni-Shia war in Iraq, and al-Qaeda plays a major role in maintaining the Sunni-Shia war in Iraq . Al Qaeda accomplishes this by committing selected extremely enraging atrocites against the Sunni and against the Shia, such that the ones against the Shia are made to appear done by Sunni and the ones against the Sunny are made to appear done by Shia.
Quote:
www.dni.gov/release_letter_101105.html
A summary of Letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi July 9, 2005.
The war in Iraq is central to al Qa'ida's global jihad.
The war will not end with an American departure.
Their strategic vision is one of inevitable conflict with a call by al-Zawahiri for political action equal to military action.
Popular support must be maintained at least until jihadist rule has been established.
More than half the struggle is taking place "in the battlefield of the media."
Quote:Hayden said he believes that the turning point in the fighting came in February with the bombing of the Askariya mosque in Samarra. The destruction of the revered Shiite site by Sunni-based al-Qaeda terrorists unleashed what Hayden described as "historic forces" that have created "the satanic level of violence" of today.
...
Quote:CIA Director Michael Hayden gave testimony
...
there were only 1300 foreign al-Qaeda volunteers fighting in Iraq, whereas the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement was "in the low tens of thousands" strong.
...
Only 19 al-Qaeda terrorists perpetrated 9/11. How many 9/11s could 1300 foreign al-Qaeda volunteers perpetrate? How many bombings of Shia and Sunni mosques could 1300 foreign al-Qaeda volunteers perpetrate? How many bombings of Shia and Sunni crowds could 1300 foreign al-Qaeda volunteers perpetrate?
Quote:Violence in Iraq Called Increasingly Complex
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 17, 2006; A19
Attacks in Iraq reached a high of approximately 180 a day last month, reflecting an increasingly complicated conflict that includes sectarian clashes of Sunni and Shiite militias on top of continuing strikes by insurgents, criminal gangs and al-Qaeda terrorists, according to the directors of the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency.
"No single narrative is sufficient to explain all the violence we see in Iraq today," Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the CIA director, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday.
Attempting to describe the enemy, Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the DIA director, listed "Iraqi nationalists, ex-Baathists, former military, angry Sunni, Jihadists, foreign fighters and al-Qaeda," who create an "overlapping, complex and multi-polar Sunni insurgent and terrorist environment." He added that "Shia militias and Shia militants, some Kurdish pesh merga, and extensive criminal activity further contribute to violence, instability and insecurity."
...
Hayden said he believes that the turning point in the fighting came in February with the bombing of the Askariya mosque in Samarra. The destruction of the revered Shiite site by Sunni-based al-Qaeda terrorists unleashed what Hayden described as "historic forces" that have created "the satanic level of violence" of today.
"Sectarian violence now presents the greatest immediate threat to Iraq's stability and future," he said.
...
BTW ican, if your so interested in eliminating Al Qaeda then you should realize that we should have never invaded Iraq. Al Qaeda was and is headquartered in Afghanistan. It was there we should have put all our anti-terrorist resources, not Iraq. All Iraq had was a small camp in NE Iraq that we could have taken out whenever we wanted. But Bush refused.
Now this invasion has created a much friendlier Muslim wide environment for Al Qaeda. The hatred we gained for invading Iraq correspondently gives Al Qaeda more sympathy and recruits. Bush's invasion of Iraq did not stem the tide of terrorist but created a new cause for them. The invasion of Iraq, based on false and cooked intelligence, has reinforced Al Qaeda's message that we are invaders interested in controlling their oil. Our threats to attack Syria and Iran further reinforces this message.
Bush has been the best unwilling ally the terrorist have ever had. His invasion of Iraq was the best thing that happened to international terrorism. Osama is, we presume, still alive, Al Qaeda is getting stronger, the Teliban now controls a part of Pakistan and Afghanistan and is gaining more sympathy in Afghanistan and we're stuck in another Vietnam; a never ending war we can't win. As long as our troops kill innocent women and children in Iraq we create more hatred for us and our war on terrorism. You can't win this type of war when you make the people hate you. And they will hate us as long as we are in Iraq. To them we are now no different than the Russians when they invaded Afghanistan. We lost our 9/11 sympathy with the Muslims when Bush invaded Iraq. 9/11 may be a big issue with Americans but Muslims know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It was used as an excuse to invade the Middle East and control its oil.
Poor dumb George Bush. He thought Iraq was France during WWII and Iraq would love us for "liberating" them. The poor dumb idiot just didn't understand that the Muslim world is not like the Western world. I don't think he understands it yet.
