34 Dead as Baghdad Bombers Hit Red Cross, Police

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Furthermore, if you consider that a dude from Syria (where Arab nationalism hasn't exactly died out) has been detained for involvement in the bombings, it seems extremely likely to me that the Ba'athists orchestrated this.

He was a Yemeni, carrying a (fake?) Syrian passport.

[Ramo]

I think they first thought he was a Yemeni, then concluded he was a Syrian. But Yemen is full of Arab nationalists too.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


But AFAIK, the authorities haven't a single proven al-Qaeda agent thus far. Which is in stark contrast to the plethora of Ba'athists they have.

Ansar, I believe, is an organization only loosely connected with al-Qaeda, and doesn't have anywhere close to the resources as al-Qaeda. I don't think they could pull it off.

Ansars links to AQ are based on individuals with membership in both organizations, like Zarqawi. This is no different then the links between the AQ and JI which pulled off the Bali bombing. The actual number of "sworn" AQ memebers seems to be actually rather small, only a few hundred. The vast majority the graduates of Bin Ladens training camps went off to affiliate organizations. Thats the way AQ works - through affiliates, united more by a common ideology and vision than by detailed organizational links. They seem to have moved even further in this direction since their central organization was attacked after 9/11.

Al ansar had limited resources prior to Gulf War 2. Which made sense - there wasnt alot they could do, so AQ directed resources elsewhere - Zarqawi focused more on Saudi and Jordan. Since then two things have happened 1. The overthrow of Hussein, and subsequent instability, have both opened up Iraq as a field of operations, and made it imperative to AQ to see that the US fail in Iraq. 2. The Riyadh bombings of May resulted in a severe crackdown on AQ in Saudi Arabia. Both these would explain the new AQ focus on Iraq, which would result in AQ focusing resources on Ansar.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
I think they first thought he was a Yemeni, then concluded he was a Syrian. But Yemen is full of Arab nationalists too.

Other way around - he called himself Syrian, then they decided he was Yemeni.

Yemen has lots of Islamists - theres been a virtual civil war between the Islamists and govt. Are the still Arab nationalists who are not pro-govt? Maybe, though i havent heard about them lately. The point is that you stated his nationality as evidence that this is NOT islamism at work. If hes yemeni his nationality is not such evidence.

The choice of targets, the method ofoperations, all point
to AQ. What are the arguments its NOT AQ?

1. The Syrian nationality of the one captured bomber - but it turns out hes Yemeni, not Syrian (and BTW, there are also Islamists in Syria and Lebanon)
2. It happened on Ramadan. But AQ executes operations on Ramadan
3. Ansar doesnt have enough resources. But theres plenty of reason to think AQ is focusing resources on Iraq, and Ansar would be who they would focus them through
4. No AQ captured yet (that we know of) First this requires ignoring captured Ansar. Second, even if we ignore those, its easily explained by Coalition focus on Baathi, and superior AQ tradecraft.

Is it POSSIBLE that its not AQ? certainly. But Id say theres at least a 75% probability that it was AQ and affiliates involved.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Actually, they have a fair amount of gas for power purposes, and you don't burn crude oil for power generation. A lot of their fuel oil is imported and/or running on current inventories, as a good portion of their refinery sector is as ****ed up as the rest of their industry.

I was responding to someone who implied that the restoration of Iraqi oil production before water restoration was complete was somehow suspicious. IIUC Natural Gas production is usually (and in the mideast virtually always) a byproduct of crude oil production. Surely youre not suggesting that Natural gas production should have been restored, and the oil flared off?? The REASON you burn Gas instead of oil for power generation in an oil producing area, is that Gas is more difficult to transport, so the economics of burning oil for power is unfavorable.

[lord of the mark]

AFP - October 14


'US forces have captured a suspected top leader of Ansar al-Islam in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul in a significant blow to a militant Islamic group believed to be plotting attacks in Iraq. a US defense official said.



"What we had was a very senior AI (Ansar al-Islam) guy got picked up Thursday night into Friday," said the official.


The official was identified as Aso Hawleri, also known as Asad Muhammad Hasan, the official said.


Hawleri was the leader of an Ansar al Islam faction called the Second Soran Unit, which at one point consisted of some 350 armed fighters, according to Michael Rubin, an analyst with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, in a December 2001 report.


"It's a significant catch in the war on terrorism," the defense official said. '

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Given that the situation they would inherit in January 2005 is a bit different than the one that pertains now, anyone with an announced set of goals now, for what they would do starting in '05, is a fool.

Also, there's a little fundamental sticking point (and I'm not 100% sure you're trolling this time, Ned ), and that is the moral/pragmatic issues involved in having "goals" for a foreign country we invaded and conquered for no particular good reason other than it's ruler was an ******* and it sits on a bunch of oil.

Colonialism is just soooooo... like, last century.

I hardly believe Clark, et al., are entitled to heavily criticize Bush for having no exit strategy when they themselves have none. That is my point.

On the way home last night, I heard that a prominent Democrat was saying essentially the same thing. She said that the problem the Democrat party was having was that it had no foreign policy vision. Simple criticism of Bush is no substitute for having such a vision.

About Bush, he articulated a very simple plan on Iraq in the beginning. Most Americans supported it. He said we would leave as soon as the new government was up and running, etc. Now he no longer talks about leaving. That is disturbing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


Several months ago, Bush said our goal was to defeat Saddam, install Democracy, and then leave. Today, I see no clearly defined goal. Bush seems to have become a victim of mission creep.

Interesting you say that. A number of people are interpreting it not as mission creep, but as backing down - IE not that he would stay in Iraq even AFTER democracy is established, but that he might withdraw BEFORE that happens.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I hardly believe Clark, et al., are entitled to heavily criticize Bush for having no exit strategy when they themselves have none. That is my point.

Sure they are. Bush made a major campaign point of saying he wouldn't send American troops anwywhere they didn't have an exit strategy. He opened himself up for criticism by opening his mouth.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Sure they are. Bush made a major campaign point of saying he wouldn't send American troops anwywhere they didn't have an exit strategy. He opened himself up for criticism by opening his mouth.

Che, I refer to Ann Coulter's article as to why the left are not hypocrites. Having no morals, no goals, no vision, they cannot be accused of hypocrisy.

Still, I believe Bush is falling into a mission creep trap that may cause our Iraq venture to fail. Reagan failed in Lebanon because of it. Clinton failed at Moghadishu for the same reason.

We failed in Vietnam when Kennedy/Johnson took over that war from the Vietnamese. Mission creep. Nixon succeeded because he had an exit strategy and carried it out with single-minded determination.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Nixon succeeded because he had an exit strategy and carried it out with single-minded determination.

Five years of ****ing around then leaving under essentially the same conditions is not "determination" although it might be "single-minded"

And for all of Nixon's "great" "efforts" (since he was the proto-chicken-hawk, managing to find a billet as a stateside government lawyer in WW2), the ARVN's folded up like a circus tent the moment the NVA hit them hard.

Bush doesn't have "mission creep" yet, because he's never yet had a clear grasp of the original mission, and nobody else who thinks they run that show does either - that's why you can't get 'em to sing from the same hymnal.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, I refer to Ann Coulter's article . . .

Then I need pay you no mind.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned


I hardly believe Clark, et al., are entitled to heavily criticize Bush for having no exit strategy when they themselves have none. That is my point.

On the way home last night, I heard that a prominent Democrat was saying essentially the same thing. She said that the problem the Democrat party was having was that it had no foreign policy vision. Simple criticism of Bush is no substitute for having such a vision.

About Bush, he articulated a very simple plan on Iraq in the beginning. Most Americans supported it. He said we would leave as soon as the new government was up and running, etc. Now he no longer talks about leaving. That is disturbing.

Bush didn't argue a simple plan, he argued a simplistic one. There's a big difference.

He thought that everyone would strew rose petals in our path, and that a new US compliant government would be up and running without real internal opposition, and without any internal backbone, so that they'd automatically rubber stamp our desired goals. Now we can't trust our boys, so Bremer still has to let the contracts, and we can't keep a lid on the *******s.

A simple problem for the Dems (and anyone else) is that talking about "what you'd do in Iraq now" will lead to accusations of sabotaging the mission, being unpatriotic, and the usual "go get a room with Hanoi Jane" sort of thing you can anticipate from the pitbulls on the right - Bush can distance himself from it, while the candidate who would be dumb enough to fall into that trap would be mauled all to hell and back. This early in primary season, there's nothing to gain and everything to lose. The focus for the Dems has to be how to stab those other primary candidates in the back and still be in a position to talk about party unity with a straight face.

Anyone who actually inherits the FUBAR in Iraq won't do so until late January of '05, so talking now about a vastly different and unpredictable situation that will apply then is also pretty pointless.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Then I need pay you no mind.

Of course, Che, the truth hurts.

[Ned]

MtG, I must admit, I do not understand you hostility to Vietnamization. I think that that is exactly what we need now in Iraq. What real objection do you have to building up the Iraqi military and withdrawing?