9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 03:03 pm
fanaticism > idealism.

What do you do when the 18 year old decides to go against the local fanatics who then proceed to kill him in a most gruesome way. Will other 18 year olds be eager to go against them? Probably not until someone more powerful then the fanatic comes along to drive them away.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 04:17 pm
Blackwater blamed for guard deaths

By RICHARD LARDNER and MIKE BAKER, Associated Press Writers 16 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Blackwater USA triggered a major battle in the Iraq war in 2004 by sending an unprepared team of guards into an insurgent stronghold, a move that led to their horrific deaths and a violent response by U.S. forces, says a congressional investigation released Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The private security company, one of the largest working in Iraq and under scrutiny for how it operates, also is faulted for initially insisting its guards were properly prepared and equipped. It is also accused of impeding the inquiry by the Democratic staff of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The results of the staff inquiry come less than a week before Erik Prince, a former Navy SEAL and Blackwater's founder, is scheduled to testify before the committee, which is chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., a longtime critic of Blackwater.

The March 2004 incident involving Blackwater was widely viewed as a turning point in the Iraq war after images of the mutilated bodies of the four guards were seen around the world. Four days after the Blackwater guards were killed, a major military offensive, known as the Battle of Fallujah, began.

The combat lasted almost a month in Fallujah, which is 40 miles west of Baghdad. At least 36 U.S. military personnel were killed along with 200 insurgents and an estimated 600 civilians, the congressional investigation found.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 08:42 pm
I've posted on this thread about the difficulty of recruiting soldiers into todays army and marines. As I've claimed about the level of education and crime record of recent recruits, I wasn't too far off.


Gates expects to approve Army expansion

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 1 hour, 15 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday he's inclined to approve an Army proposal to spend nearly $3 billion extra over the next four years to accelerate an expansion of its force. Army Secretary Pete Geren said speeding up the growth of the force, stretched thin by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, would mean recruiting faster and increasing the number of soldiers who re-enlist.
ADVERTISEMENT

"I'm probably going to recommend they go ahead and give it a try," Gates told reporters at a Pentagon news conference. Appearing with Gates was Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who is retiring on Monday after 40 years in the Marine Corps.

The defense secretary cautioned that he would not accept any accelerated expansion of the Army that would lead the Army to lower its recruiting standards, including levels of education required.

"I'm inclined to approve it," Gates said. "My questions have focused principally on whether they can do it, in terms of recruitment and whether they can do so without lowering standards and, in fact, to begin to move back toward the high standards of not too many months ago."

Gates mentioned, as an example, that the percentage of Army recruits with a high school diploma has dropped to about 76 percent, compared with over 90 percent in recent years. "We'd like to see that get back up," he said.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 08:44 pm
And this:


February 14, 2007
Army Giving More Waivers in Recruiting
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

Correction Appended

The number of waivers granted to Army recruits with criminal backgrounds has grown about 65 percent in the last three years, increasing to 8,129 in 2006 from 4,918 in 2003, Department of Defense records show.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 06:12 am
Whose country is it?

Quote:
Iraq rejects call for federalism
Published: 28th September 2007

CAIRO: Iraq's Shi'ite vice president yesterday rejected a US Senate resolution pushing the Baghdad government to give more control to Iraq's ethnically divided regions. He insisted federalism was an internal Iraqi matter.

The Arab League also firmly rejected the US plan and lambasted Washington for destroying Iraq and turning it into the main base for Al Qaeda.

The Senate passed the measure a day earlier, calling on Iraq to limit central government control in a bid to resolve its violence and political crisis.

Democrat Senator Joseph Biden, one of the nine binding measure's primary sponsors, has called for Iraq to be divided into federal regions for the country's Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish communities in a power-sharing agreement similar to Bosnia in the 1990s.

On a visit to Cairo, Iraqi Vice-President Adil Abdul Mahdi said, "people have the right to say whatever they want, though these issues are related to Iraq."

"A thousand projects could be passed from outside, but the decision that is to be passed in Iraq is to be decided by Iraqis and nobody else," he said after meeting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

He repeated those sentiments later in the day after meeting with Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Al Sharaa in Damascus, where he expressed admiration for the UAE's confederation, but said it was inapplicable to Iraq's situation.

Abdul Mahdi said that in his talks with Mubarak, he discussed the security and political situation in Iraq and the possibility of reopening the Egyptian diplomatic mission in Baghdad, in addition to enrolling Egypt in projects to rebuild Iraq.

In Damascus, Abdul Mahdi said the "often rocky relationship between Iraq and Syria was improving. Ties have been bolstered in all sectors."

Meanwhile, Turkey and Iraq will today sign a security agreement to combat Turkish Kurd rebels taking refuge in northern Iraq, an Iraqi official said after marathon talks.

"The agreement will be signed by the Turkish and Iraqi interior ministers" an Iraqi official said yesterday.

Blackwater USA triggered a major battle in the Iraq war by sending an unprepared team of security guards into an insurgent stronghold, which led to their horrific deaths and a violent response by US forces, according to a congressional investigation released yesterday.

In another development, a senior Iraqi official urged Damascus yesterday to improve the lot of Iraqi refugees whose arrival in Syria has raised tensions between the two countries.

"The refugees are the responsibility of the Iraqi government but they're also victims of regional and international circumstances everyone helped create," Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi said in Damascus.

Separately, the US military said yesterday it was investigating the deaths of five women and four children in a village south of Baghdad where American forces had conducted air and ground operations.

US forces were targeting Al Qaeda in Iraq-linked fighters in ground and air operations late Tuesday in the village of Babahani before the bodies were discovered.


source
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 04:26 pm
McGentrix wrote:
fanaticism > idealism.

What do you do when the 18 year old decides to go against the local fanatics who then proceed to kill him in a most gruesome way. Will other 18 year olds be eager to go against them? Probably not until someone more powerful then the fanatic comes along to drive them away.
What you do is continue working to exterminate the fanatics while protecting the local 18 year olds going against the fanatics.

When at war, what do you do if the people you are hired to protect are fired upon? You work to exterminate everyone and anyone who appears to you to be a member of those firing upon you or the people you are attempting to protect.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 04:29 pm
ican711nm wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
fanaticism > idealism.

What do you do when the 18 year old decides to go against the local fanatics who then proceed to kill him in a most gruesome way. Will other 18 year olds be eager to go against them? Probably not until someone more powerful then the fanatic comes along to drive them away.
What you do is continue working to exterminate the fanatics while protecting the local 18 year olds going against the fanatics.

When at war, what do you do if the people you are hired to protect are fired upon? You work to exterminate everyone and anyone who appears to you to be a member of those firing upon you or the people you are attempting to protect.


Trying to explain why Blackwater shot up a whole ton of people? Not a good effort on your part.

If you try to exterminate fanatics, then you are yourself a fanatic. You merely differ in targets.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 04:30 pm
revel wrote:
Whose country is it?
...

It belongs to the people who work to protect it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 04:32 pm
ican711nm wrote:
revel wrote:
Whose country is it?
...

It belongs to the people who work to protect it.


I've decided that I'm going to work to protect your house, Ican, whether you want me to or not. I'll be over shortly; and, I may have to stay a while to tamp down on the insurgency.

You're either with me, or them, I have to warn you.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 04:48 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
fanaticism > idealism.

What do you do when the 18 year old decides to go against the local fanatics who then proceed to kill him in a most gruesome way. Will other 18 year olds be eager to go against them? Probably not until someone more powerful then the fanatic comes along to drive them away.
What you do is continue working to exterminate the fanatics while protecting the local 18 year olds going against the fanatics.

When at war, what do you do if the people you are hired to protect are fired upon? You work to exterminate everyone and anyone who appears to you to be a member of those firing upon you or the people you are attempting to protect.


Trying to explain why Blackwater shot up a whole ton of people? Not a good effort on your part.

If you try to exterminate fanatics, then you are yourself a fanatic. You merely differ in targets.

Cycloptichorn

The people I am fanatic about wanting exterminated are fanatic about knowingly mass murdering civilians.

People who are fanatics about knowingly mass murdering civilians are CLASS A FANATICS.

People who are fanatic about exterminating CLASS A FANATICS are Class B Fanatics.

I'm a class B Fanatic.

People who oppose both CLASS A FANATICS and Class B Fanatics are class c fanatics. Class c fanatics tend to remain such until they are directly threatened by CLASS A FANATICS. Then they accuse the Class B Fanatics of causing the CLASS A FANATICS to directly threaten the class c fanatics. They thereby convert themselves to class nuts fanatics.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 04:50 pm
Doesn't matter. You're still an extremist and a fanatic. You won't turn anyone to your side by being the same as those who are fanatics in their countries.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 04:55 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
revel wrote:
Whose country is it?
...

It belongs to the people who work to protect it.


I've decided that I'm going to work to protect your house, Ican, whether you want me to or not. I'll be over shortly; and, I may have to stay a while to tamp down on the insurgency.

You're either with me, or them, I have to warn you.

Cycloptichorn

I either want you to help me protect my house or I don't. If I don't, scram! If I do, stay until I tell you to scram. I have to warn you. It's my house and I am working to protect it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 05:01 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
revel wrote:
Whose country is it?
...

It belongs to the people who work to protect it.


I've decided that I'm going to work to protect your house, Ican, whether you want me to or not. I'll be over shortly; and, I may have to stay a while to tamp down on the insurgency.

You're either with me, or them, I have to warn you.

Cycloptichorn

I either want you to help me protect my house or I don't. If I don't, scram! If I do, stay until I tell you to scram. I have to warn you. It's my house and I am working to protect it.


Sorry, but it's in your best interests if you let me do it for you. I have to ensure that it doesn't become a home base for Fanatics at any point in the future. If you persist in fighting against this assistance I provide you, you will be treated as if you were a Fanatic and dealt with.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 05:04 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Doesn't matter. You're still an extremist and a fanatic. You won't turn anyone to your side by being the same as those who are fanatics in their countries.

Cycloptichorn

Doesn't matter to you. It does matter to me. And yes I am a Class B Fanatic who is also a Class B Extremist.

I will turn everyone to my side who is threatened by CLASS A FANATICS if those Class B Fanatics I support succeed in exterminating CLASS A FANATICS.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 05:07 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Doesn't matter. You're still an extremist and a fanatic. You won't turn anyone to your side by being the same as those who are fanatics in their countries.

Cycloptichorn

Doesn't matter to you. It does matter to me. And yes I am a Class B Fanatic who is also a Class B Extremist.

I will turn everyone to my side who is threatened by CLASS A FANATICS if those Class B Fanatics I support succeed in exterminating CLASS A FANATICS.


You won't have an opportunity to do so; we can't tolerate you fomenting resistance and insurgency within the area which we are trying to deny from Fanatics of all stripes. I'm afraid measures will have to be taken if you can't peacefully join the new gov't we're forming to run your house.

There is absolutely zero difference between the way you feel about your house, and the way Iraqis who are in the insurgency feel about their country.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 05:16 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
revel wrote:
Whose country is it?
...

It belongs to the people who work to protect it.


I've decided that I'm going to work to protect your house, Ican, whether you want me to or not. I'll be over shortly; and, I may have to stay a while to tamp down on the insurgency.

You're either with me, or them, I have to warn you.

Cycloptichorn

I either want you to help me protect my house or I don't. If I don't, scram! If I do, stay until I tell you to scram. I have to warn you. It's my house and I am working to protect it.


Sorry, but it's in your best interests if you let me do it for you. I have to ensure that it doesn't become a home base for Fanatics at any point in the future. If you persist in fighting against this assistance I provide you, you will be treated as if you were a Fanatic and dealt with.

Cycloptichorn

You would clearly be a CLASS A FANATIC, and I will work to exterminate you as such if you fail to scram whenever I say to you, scram.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 05:17 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
revel wrote:
Whose country is it?
...

It belongs to the people who work to protect it.


I've decided that I'm going to work to protect your house, Ican, whether you want me to or not. I'll be over shortly; and, I may have to stay a while to tamp down on the insurgency.

You're either with me, or them, I have to warn you.

Cycloptichorn

I either want you to help me protect my house or I don't. If I don't, scram! If I do, stay until I tell you to scram. I have to warn you. It's my house and I am working to protect it.


Sorry, but it's in your best interests if you let me do it for you. I have to ensure that it doesn't become a home base for Fanatics at any point in the future. If you persist in fighting against this assistance I provide you, you will be treated as if you were a Fanatic and dealt with.

Cycloptichorn

You would clearly be a CLASS A FANATIC, and I will work to exterminate you as such if you fail to scram whenever I say to you, scram.


It's nice to see, after all this time, that you've finally identified with the Insurgents in Iraq clearly. I hope that this revelation will lead you to a new level of understanding of just how screwed up our actions have been there.

I applaud you, sir.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 06:26 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
revel wrote:
Whose country is it?
...

It belongs to the people who work to protect it.


I've decided that I'm going to work to protect your house, Ican, whether you want me to or not. I'll be over shortly; and, I may have to stay a while to tamp down on the insurgency.

You're either with me, or them, I have to warn you.

Cycloptichorn

I either want you to help me protect my house or I don't. If I don't, scram! If I do, stay until I tell you to scram. I have to warn you. It's my house and I am working to protect it.


Sorry, but it's in your best interests if you let me do it for you. I have to ensure that it doesn't become a home base for Fanatics at any point in the future. If you persist in fighting against this assistance I provide you, you will be treated as if you were a Fanatic and dealt with.

Cycloptichorn

You would clearly be a CLASS A FANATIC, and I will work to exterminate you as such if you fail to scram whenever I say to you, scram.


It's nice to see, after all this time, that you've finally identified with the Insurgents in Iraq clearly. I hope that this revelation will lead you to a new level of understanding of just how screwed up our actions have been there.

I applaud you, sir.

Cycloptichorn

I neither deserve or want your commendation for such. My house does not belong to the insurgents. The insurgents are CLASS A FANATICS.

My house does not belong to any CLASS A FANATICS that are in my house. My house belongs only to those Class B Fanatics in my house who like my self actually own my house.

When for your own reasons you first entered my house univited, you removed some formidable CLASS A FANATICS. When we reorganized we did not tell you to scram because there were still CLASS A FANATICS in our house. You are currently helping us work to eliminate all remaining CLASS A FANATICS from our house. When we think we by ourselves are able to eliminate whatever ones remain, we will ask you to scram, and expect you to do exactly that.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 06:31 pm
Oh, but you do deserve the commendation, Ican.

You see the Insurgents (sunnis) owned Iraq before we got there. We entered Iraq uninvited. We took out other fanatics in the process who were running the place. We are now staying to ensure that fanatics don't regain control

It's a perfect match to your response, Ican. You have the heart of an Insurgent within you Laughing

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 06:33 pm
Quote:
Why We're Winning Now in Iraq
Anbar's citizens needed protection before they would give their "hearts and minds."
BY FREDERICK W. KAGAN
OpnionJournal
Friday, September 28, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Many politicians and pundits in Washington have ignored perhaps the most important point made by Gen. David Petraeus in his recent congressional testimony: The defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq requires a combination of conventional forces, special forces and local forces. This realization has profound implications not only for American strategy in Iraq, but also for the future of the war on terror.

As Gen. Petraeus made clear, the adoption of a true counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq in January 2007 has led to unprecedented progress in the struggle against al Qaeda in Iraq, by protecting Sunni Arabs who reject the terrorists among them from the vicious retribution of those terrorists. In his address to the United Nations General Assembly Wednesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki also touted the effectiveness of this strategy while at the same time warning of al Qaeda in Iraq's continued threat to his government and indeed the entire region.

Yet despite the undeniable successes the new strategy has achieved against al Qaeda in Iraq, many in Congress are still pushing to change the mission of U.S. forces back to a counterterrorism role relying on special forces and precision munitions to conduct targeted attacks on terrorist leaders. This change would bring us back to the traditional, consensus strategy for dealing with cellular terrorist groups like al Qaeda--a strategy that has consistently failed in Iraq.

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the consensus of American strategists has been that the best way to fight a cellular terrorist organization like al Qaeda is through a combination of targeted strikes against key leaders and efforts to discredit al Qaeda's takfiri ideology in the Muslim community. Precision-guided munitions and special forces have been touted as the ideal weapons against this sort of group, because they require a minimal presence on the ground and therefore do not create the image of American invasion or occupation of a Muslim country.
A correlative assumption has often been that the visible presence of Western troops in Muslim lands creates more terrorists than it eliminates. The American attack on the Taliban in 2001 is often held up now--as it was at the time--as an exemplar of the right way to do things in this war: Small numbers of special forces worked with indigenous Afghan resistance fighters to defeat the Taliban and drive out al Qaeda without the infusion of large numbers of American ground forces. For many, Afghanistan is the virtuous war (contrasting with Iraq) not only because it was fought against the group that planned the 9/11 attacks, but also because it was fought in accord with accepted theories of fighting cellular terrorist organizations.

This strategy failed in Iraq for four years--skilled U.S. special-forces teams killed a succession of al Qaeda in Iraq leaders, but the organization was able to replace them faster than we could kill them. A counterterrorism strategy that did not secure the population from terrorist attacks led to consistent increases in terrorist violence and exposed Sunni leaders disenchanted with the terrorists to brutal death whenever they tried to resist. It emerged that "winning the hearts and minds" of the local population is not enough when the terrorists are able to torture and kill anyone who tries to stand up against them.

Despite an extremely aggressive counterterrorism campaign, by the end of 2006, al Qaeda in Iraq had heavily fortified strongholds equipped with media centers, torture chambers, weapons depots and training areas throughout Anbar province; in Baghdad; in Baqubah and other parts of Diyala province; in Arab Jabour and other villages south of Baghdad; and in various parts of Salah-ad-Din province north of the capital. Al Qaeda in Iraq was blending with the Sunni Arab insurgency in a relationship of mutual support. It was able to conduct scores of devastating, spectacular attacks against Shiite and other targets. Killing al Qaeda leaders in targeted raids had failed utterly either to prevent al Qaeda in Iraq from establishing safe havens throughout Iraq or to control the terrorist violence.

The Sunni Arabs in Iraq lost their enthusiasm for al Qaeda very quickly after their initial embrace of the movement. By 2005, currents of resistance had begun to flow in Anbar, expanding in 2006. Al Qaeda responded to this rising resistance with unspeakable brutality--beheading young children, executing Sunni leaders and preventing their bodies from being buried within the time required by Muslim law, torturing resisters by gouging out their eyes, electrocuting them, crushing their heads in vices, and so on. This brutality naturally inflamed the desire to resist in the Sunni Arab community--but actual resistance in 2006 remained fitful and ineffective. There was no power in Anbar or anywhere that could protect the resisters against al Qaeda retribution, and so al Qaeda continued to maintain its position by force among a population that had initially welcomed it willingly.

The proof? In all of 2006, there were only 1,000 volunteers to join the Iraqi Security Forces in Anbar, despite rising resentment against al Qaeda. Voluntarism was kept down by al Qaeda attacks against ISF recruiting stations and targeted attacks on the families of volunteers. Although tribal leaders had begun to turn against the terrorists, American forces remained under siege in the provincial capital of Ramadi--they ultimately had to level all of the buildings around their headquarters to secure it from constant attack. An initial clearing operation conducted by Col. Sean MacFarland established forward positions in Ramadi with tremendous difficulty and at great cost, but the city was not cleared; attacks on American forces remained extremely high; and the terrorist safe-havens in the province were largely intact.

This year has been a different story in Anbar, and elsewhere in Iraq. The influx of American forces in support of a counterinsurgency strategy--more than 4,000 went into Anbar--allowed U.S. commanders to take hold of the local resentment against al Qaeda by promising to protect those who resisted the terrorists. When American forces entered al Qaeda strongholds like Arab Jabour, the first question the locals asked is: Are you going to stay this time? They wanted to know if the U.S. would commit to protecting them against al Qaeda retribution. U.S. soldiers have done so, in Anbar, Baghdad, Baqubah, Arab Jabour and elsewhere. They have established joint security stations with Iraqi soldiers and police throughout urban areas and in villages. They have worked with former insurgents and local people to form "concerned citizens" groups to protect their own neighborhoods. Their presence among the people has generated confidence that al Qaeda will be defeated, resulting in increased information about the movements of al Qaeda operatives and local support for capturing or killing them.

The result was a dramatic turnabout in Anbar itself--in contrast to the 1,000 recruits of last year, there have already been more than 12,000 this year. Insurgent groups like the 1920s Revolution Brigades that had been fighting alongside al Qaeda in 2006 have fractured, with many coming over to fight with the coalition against the terrorists--more than 30,000 Iraq-wide, by some estimates. The tribal movement in Anbar both solidified and spread--there are now counter-al Qaeda movements throughout Central Iraq, including Diyala, Baghdad, Salah-ad-Din, Babil and Ninewah. Only recently an "awakening council" was formed in Mosul, Ninewah's capital, modeled on the Anbar pattern.

A targeted raid killed Abu Musaab al Zarqawi, founder of al Qaeda in Iraq, near Baqubah in June 2006. After that raid, al Qaeda's grip on Baqubah and throughout Diyala only grew stronger. But skillful clearing operations conducted by American forces, augmented by the surge, have driven al Qaeda out of Baqubah almost entirely. The "Baqubah Guardians" now protect that provincial capital against al Qaeda fighters who previously used it as a major base of operations. The old strategy of targeted raids failed in Diyala, as in Anbar and elsewhere throughout Iraq. The new strategy of protecting the population, in combination with targeted raids, has succeeded so well that al Qaeda in Iraq now holds no major urban sanctuary.

This turnabout coincided with an increase in American forces in Iraq and a change in their mission to securing the population. Not only were more American troops moving about the country, but they were much more visible as they established positions spread out among urban populations. According to all the principles of the consensus counterterrorism strategy, the effect of this surge should have been to generate more terrorists and more terrorism. Instead, it enabled the Iraqi people to throw off the terrorists whose ideas they had already rejected, confident that they would be protected from horrible reprisals. It proved that, at least in this case, conventional forces in significant numbers conducting a traditional counterinsurgency mission were absolutely essential to defeating this cellular terrorist group.

What lessons does this example hold for future fights in the War on Terror? First, defeating al Qaeda in Iraq requires continuing an effective counterinsurgency strategy that involves American conventional forces helping Iraqi Security Forces to protect the population in conjunction with targeted strikes. Reverting to a strategy relying only on targeted raids will allow al Qaeda to re-establish itself in Iraq and begin once again to gain strength. In the longer term, we must fundamentally re-evaluate the consensus strategy for fighting the war on terror. Success against al Qaeda in Iraq obviously does not show that the solution to problems in Waziristan, Baluchistan or elsewhere lies in an American-led invasion. Each situation is unique, each al-Qaeda franchise is unique, and responses must be tailored appropriately.

But one thing is clear from the Iraqi experience. It is not enough to persuade a Muslim population to reject al Qaeda's ideology and practice. Someone must also be willing and able to protect that population against the terrorists they had been harboring, something that special forces and long-range missiles alone can't do.

Mr. Kagan is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author most recently of "No Middle Way: The Challenge of Exit Strategies from Iraq." (AEI, 2007).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 08/04/2025 at 03:25:55