Pulling out of Iraq and the WoT

[Kidlicious]

This is all such a joke. There's no WoT. If there were we would be doing things very different.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
There goes the Ned we all know and "love"...

Nice reply, GePap. I see you are not serious about your position as it is basically unsupportable. Thus, one more ad hominem from you.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Berzerker



There are definitely similarities, AQ was born from the aftermath of the effort to push the Russians out of Afghanistan and were allowed to exist because of the ties they had with the Afghan resistance. Now AQ is in Iraq apparently with some ties to the Sunni insurgents - the Iraqi resistance to push us out - and may be rewarded by the Sunnis with room to operate once we leave. But what are they going to do? Sit in a room and make plans to hijack some more planes? The fact is these guys can make plans anywhere...

Leaving Iraq makes AQ choose between fighting us and fighting the Shia... According to the strategy of AQ in Iraq, their goal was to open up fronts against us to relieve the pressure in Afghanistan.
Thats why an Iraqi franchise opened up after Saddam was out of power. It worked of course, we're tied down in Iraq and the pressure on AQ in Afghanistan was relieved. Now we can do the same thing to them, leaving Iraq while they're tied down in a Sunni/Shia war leaves them with the front they helped create for us. Or they'll just have to leave Iraq and head back to Afghanistan.
AQ's popularity requires us as occupiers...

Berz, you agree then, that if AQ wants to stay in the Sunni areas, it can.

I also agree that the financial effort to defeat the Shi'ite-dominated government will be less once we leave Iraq.

What will they do? Set up training camps would be my guess.

If you see no threat in that, and your post implies that you see no threat, then to be coherent, you must also agree that the AQ bases in Afghanistan were no threat and our effort there was and is misplaced.

Not so?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious
This is all such a joke. There's no WoT. If there were we would be doing things very different.

There is a war against al Qa'ida and its associates and allies.

War implies that we go after them because they are going after us.

If there is no war, we don't have to do a thing. But this implies that al Qa'ida is not going to a thing as well.

We know this is false, of course. They will continue to try to attack us. So, what do you do under these circumstances? The same as Bill Clinton?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


There is a war against al Qa'ida and its associates and allies.

War implies that we go after them because they are going after us.

If there is no war, we don't have to do a thing. But this implies that al Qa'ida is not going to a thing as well.

We know this is false, of course. They will continue to try to attack us. So, what do you do under these circumstances? The same as Bill Clinton?

What if we defeat AQ? You think the world is going to be different?

[Ned]

Kid, I think the only way to defeat AQ is to change the muslim world. There is some truth to Bush's statement that what AQ fears the most is democracy in and Arab land.

Until then, I think our best option is to support democratic reform in Arabia and other muslim lands.

BTW, Bill Clinton said he agreed that this was the best option for the US.

[Kidlicious]

We aren't able to change the muslim world. Thats's absurd.

[Berzerker]

Berz, you agree then, that if AQ wants to stay in the Sunni areas, it can.

I dont know, they pissed off alot of people in Iraq by instigating civil war. I imagine there are even Sunni groups that would turn on them if we left and they stayed. The dynamics change instantly if we leave... If we leave why would they stay while the infidels are in Afghanistan? They'd be in the civil war they helped start, thats good for us, even better if we're no longer stuck. I dont see why they'd "have" to leave, but they aren't there for any reason other than messing with us so I dont see a reason why they'd stay unless they were in fact caught up in the civil war.

I also agree that the financial effort to defeat the Shi'ite-dominated government will be less once we leave Iraq.

Actually it might increase, the Saudis and other Sunni countries dont want Iran controlling Iraq so the Sunnis have a reason to keep the Shia majority from dominating Iraq too much. I believe the Saudis are mad at us for that and threatening to up the stakes. Not much we can do about that, we're supposedly democratizing Iraq so we cant exactly hang around to suppress the Shia on behalf of the Sunnis. But at least we'd reduce the money we're throwing at the problem, if thats what you mean.

What will they do? Set up training camps would be my guess.

The whole place is a training camp... But so what? Seriously, they use camps to shoot off guns and run around. They can plan anywhere... The problem is if we're gone their purpose for being there is gone with us. They'd have to follow us back to Afghanistan or stay and risk the chaos they helped engender...

If you see no threat in that, and your post implies that you see no threat, then to be coherent, you must also agree that the AQ bases in Afghanistan were no threat and our effort there was and is misplaced.

Actually I prefer AQ to be on bases, we can identify them easier for targeting. When AQ breaks up into splinter cells they're harder to track. Thats why we invaded Iraq, to concentrate them on a battlefield of our choosing. As for Afghanistan, if the Taliban was still willing to help us as they were before 9/11 (the Bushies dropped the ball big time on that) I'd have gone that route. If the Taliban refused privately and publicly then we'd have to invade, not because bases exist, but because AQ exists.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
As to the Arab states bordering Iraq, I will grant you that they would not support AQ in Iraq post-war. But that being said, what could they do to stop AQ from forming bases in these areas if they and the local Sunni's wanted to form them? Or better, how would he neighboring states get AQ out of Iraq when we, with a large army and Iraqi allies, find it impossible?

I think you have to conclude that if the local Sunni's want AQ there, they will stay regardless of the opinion of the neighboring states. In fact, if the neighboring states put up a fuss, they too may be targets.

Now, given all the support AQ has given the Sunni's, I think it more than likely they will be an integral part of the triangle for the indefinite future.

Assuming this is true, and it will be true unless you can tell why it will not be true, then what are we going to do about it?

"Islam requires the entire world" - Abu a'la al-Maududi

Ummm, you seem to forget the entire original purpose of al Qaeda. Namely, the ultimate formation of a global Islamic state consistent with their vision of Islam, governed solely by Sharia. Osama Bin Laden's "spiritual" and ideological outlook is primarily derived from al-Maududi's teachings on jihad, while al Zawahiri was head of an organization which grew from al Qutb's influence and teachings.

Sunnis in Iraq include Baathists, non-Baathist tribes concerned with their power and influence and interests, non-aligned foreign fighters there for the fun of it, or the pay, al Qaeda proper, and a zillion flavors of not quite al Qaeda Islamists. The two things they can all agree on is the desirability of killing Americans, and opposition to the present Shiite dominated, perceived American lackey government. In other words, an enemy of my enemy is my friend.

There is nothing in Allah's beige desert, let alone God's green earth, to suggest that these local Sunnis (Baathist, tribal leaders, etc.) have any desire to host or retain Islamist foreign fighters looking to export jihad.

They bring money, a will to blow their recruits up, weapons and unconventional warfare "expertise" (within the limits of their purposes and requirements), and a will to fight to the party. Beyond that, they're a bit uncontrollable, a bit indiscriminate, and have no long-term interests fundamentally aligned with the interests of local Sunnis.

In Afghanistan and the tribal areas of northern Pakistan, you had a leadership (Omar) who was ideologically very closely aligned with al Qaeda (Omar also is a fan of al-Maududi), but without the global vision and ambitions of the AQ leadership. Al Qaeda provided additional muscle to help the Taleban assert control and fight the NA/EA elements and keep the warlords in line, and in return for the money and physical support, the Taleban were comfortable hosting their ideological brethren.


In Iraq, beyond maintaining their traditional place at the trough, or at least enough of a portion of it, you don't have the same conditions in the local Sunni leadership. They are also a distinct minority in the resource poor portion of the country, so their only options are dominance of the Shiites (something al Qaeda is not good at, as their tactics encourage retaliation, not compliance), or coexistence with the Shiites under some sort of power-sharing or regional semi-autonomy arrangement - again, something to which al Qaeda has nothing to contribute.

In my view, the Sunnis in Iraq accept al Qaeda as somewhat useful in the present circumstances, but utterly undesireable in the long term. Once their common goals (killing Americans and overthrowing or at least attaining some degree of power wrt the Shiite-dominated government) are realized, or made irrelevant by evolution of political and military conditions, it'll be time for the third cup of coffee.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious
We aren't able to change the muslim world. Thats's absurd.

We are talking about democracy.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Berzerker



The whole place is a training camp... But so what? Seriously, they use camps to shoot off guns and run around. They can plan anywhere... The problem is if we're gone their purpose for being there is gone with us. They'd have to follow us back to Afghanistan or stay and risk the chaos they helped engender...



Actually I prefer AQ to be on bases, we can identify them easier for targeting. When AQ breaks up into splinter cells they're harder to track. Thats why we invaded Iraq, to concentrate them on a battlefield of our choosing. As for Afghanistan, if the Taliban was still willing to help us as they were before 9/11 (the Bushies dropped the ball big time on that) I'd have gone that route. If the Taliban refused privately and publicly then we'd have to invade, not because bases exist, but because AQ exists.

1) I see you agree your thesis on Iraq applies equally well to Afghanistan. To be consistent across the board, you would withdraw from Afghanistan as well I take it as the issue of al Qa'ida bases is, to you, a non issue.

2) I don't know what you are referring to by Bush dropping the ball. The Saudi's and Taliban had reached an agreement to expel bin Laden until Clinton fired his wad. Did you have anything else in mind?

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


"Islam requires the entire world" - Abu a'la al-Maududi

Ummm, you seem to forget the entire original purpose of al Qaeda. Namely, the ultimate formation of a global Islamic state consistent with their vision of Islam, governed solely by Sharia. Osama Bin Laden's "spiritual" and ideological outlook is primarily derived from al-Maududi's teachings on jihad, while al Zawahiri was head of an organization which grew from al Qutb's influence and teachings.

Sunnis in Iraq include Baathists, non-Baathist tribes concerned with their power and influence and interests, non-aligned foreign fighters there for the fun of it, or the pay, al Qaeda proper, and a zillion flavors of not quite al Qaeda Islamists. The two things they can all agree on is the desirability of killing Americans, and opposition to the present Shiite dominated, perceived American lackey government. In other words, an enemy of my enemy is my friend.

There is nothing in Allah's beige desert, let alone God's green earth, to suggest that these local Sunnis (Baathist, tribal leaders, etc.) have any desire to host or retain Islamist foreign fighters looking to export jihad.

They bring money, a will to blow their recruits up, weapons and unconventional warfare "expertise" (within the limits of their purposes and requirements), and a will to fight to the party. Beyond that, they're a bit uncontrollable, a bit indiscriminate, and have no long-term interests fundamentally aligned with the interests of local Sunnis.

In Afghanistan and the tribal areas of northern Pakistan, you had a leadership (Omar) who was ideologically very closely aligned with al Qaeda (Omar also is a fan of al-Maududi), but without the global vision and ambitions of the AQ leadership. Al Qaeda provided additional muscle to help the Taleban assert control and fight the NA/EA elements and keep the warlords in line, and in return for the money and physical support, the Taleban were comfortable hosting their ideological brethren.


In Iraq, beyond maintaining their traditional place at the trough, or at least enough of a portion of it, you don't have the same conditions in the local Sunni leadership. They are also a distinct minority in the resource poor portion of the country, so their only options are dominance of the Shiites (something al Qaeda is not good at, as their tactics encourage retaliation, not compliance), or coexistence with the Shiites under some sort of power-sharing or regional semi-autonomy arrangement - again, something to which al Qaeda has nothing to contribute.

In my view, the Sunnis in Iraq accept al Qaeda as somewhat useful in the present circumstances, but utterly undesireable in the long term. Once their common goals (killing Americans and overthrowing or at least attaining some degree of power wrt the Shiite-dominated government) are realized, or made irrelevant by evolution of political and military conditions, it'll be time for the third cup of coffee.

Good post.

But I am not sure it works if AQ can get the Sunni's to become Wahabbi's or dominated by local Wahabbi's. They would receive a lot of support from Wahabbi Saudi Arabi, official or not, if they were to become "more devout."

As to the end game in Iraq, it might end in a truce provided the Sunni's share in the oil revenue and have autonomy.

[Drake Tungsten]

Relations between Al Qaeda in Iraq and the native Sunni insurgency are already pretty bad...

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/04/are_the_tides_turning_for_alqa.php

[Berzerker]

1) I see you agree your thesis on Iraq applies equally well to Afghanistan. To be consistent across the board, you would withdraw from Afghanistan as well I take it as the issue of al Qa'ida bases is, to you, a non issue.

I dont know about equally, AQ was based in Afghanistan so we would have to deal with them somehow. They weren't in Iraq, they followed us in. I have a problem with turning other people's neighborhoods into warzones to attract terrorists. But the bases are a non-issue, AQ is the issue and it doesn't matter if they use bases or not, but I'd prefer they use bases just to make our job easier. We screwed up after 9/11, we started beating the war drums when we should have been gathering intel on their bases and working with the Taliban behind the scenes to help target them.

2) I don't know what you are referring to by Bush dropping the ball. The Saudi's and Taliban had reached an agreement to expel bin Laden until Clinton fired his wad. Did you have anything else in mind?

Near the end of Clinton's term in office we were talking to the Taliban - they wanted relief from sanctions we pushed for and they were willing to give us the AQ leadership by dropping a dime so to speak. The negotiations were supposed to continue when Bush came in but apparently nothing happened. I saw a clip of a ME man asking Ari Fleischer at a press conference in February of '01 if the Bush administration would continue the talks with the Taliban, Ari said he'd get back to him. Doesn't look like we got back to them... But among the Taliban there was a joke about this, they couldn't understand why we weren't going after AQ and volunteered to pay for the cruise missile fuel if we were short of money.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


We are talking about democracy.

We can't even do that. But if we could I don't think that would prevent groups like AQ.