Redstate

AQ and Iran are cooperating only to harm a common enemy, the United States.

AQ and Saddam had that same common enemy, to arguments that Saddam would not cooperate with AQ, and v/v, are baseless.

That's what I took from Streiff's post.

Give the man the microphone...

Jack
The World's Ruined

But because AQ is working out Iran, that means that AQ would have worked with Saddam?

Saddam was nothing if not unpredictable - trying to say what he would have or would not have done is an exercise in pure conjecture only.

If we move into the realm of fact, AQ is much, much stronger in Iraq right now than it was under Saddam.

AQ 'was' already in Saddam's little kingdom, being allowed to train there, before we charged in. It has been documented.

The old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Jack
The World's Ruined

Apparently, AQ is in England, Australia & the US from what I have been reading.

5 years ago, AQ had a tiny footprint in Iraq, now it's a very large one. And they are using Iraq as for exporting terror.

From the ny times today:

But Lebanese officials say they have had shootouts with several clusters of foreign Islamic militants, some of whom had clear ties with Mr. Abssi’s group. On June 7 a car-bomb factory was discovered in the Bekaa Valley in which two Mercedeses and a Jeep were being prepped for explosives. The operation was run by a Saudi and two Syrians who had fought in Iraq and their technique had some sophistication, including the use of fiberglass shields in a possible attempt to hide the explosives from detection devices, two Lebanese Army officials said.

“We have no sleeper cells in Lebanon,” said one Lebanese Army official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “They are all waking up.”

first of all, the point of this post is that the antiwar argument that Saddam and AQ were sworn enemies (based on the "fact" that Saddam was secular and AQ is religious) is obviously extremely dubious, if not false, since AQ is happily killing Shia in Iraq, with Shia Iran's blessing.

Follow? It's an analogy, in which we point out that the imagined enmity beween AQ and secular governments, or Shia run states, is entirely a construct used by the left to discredit one of the reasons for the invasion.

So First of all, let me ask you: are you prepared to admit that this shibboleth of the left is a lie? Because, if you accept the fact that AQ is working in the west, in other Middle Eastern countries, Sunni or Shia or Alawi, or whatever, then isn't it idiotic to cling to the argument that they worked everywhere, but never in pre-war Iraq?

I agree with you that AQ was in Iraq before the invasion.

I am making the claim that it's bad news that AQ is exponentially stronger, now, in Iraq than they were before. And that it's bad news that it's developing ties with Iran.

Can we agree that is bad news?

In the period following the war, AQ in Iraq had exactly the footprint they had before the war. This changed when the Sunnis in Iraq decided to join up with AQ to fight against the Shia-dominated government and their allies the MNF (us).

This gave AQ what they needed to become operational in Iraq -- the personnel, the communications, the territory, the intelligence, the bomb factories, etc. The AQ area in parts of Baghdad, the belts around the city, and the Sunni strongholds Anbar, Diyala, etc, became the Islamic State of Iraq, the kind of quasi-nation that AQ had set up in Afghanistan. The problem for us is that normally AQ would be set up in remote parts of the country where they could control the population, here they were in parts of the capital. This presented an enormous challenge to our forces, one which we have only recently confronted adequately. This is what the surge is about.

The important development now is that the Sunnis have turned against AlQ, thus robbing them of their base among the people. They cannot remain operational without a base in the population. This is classic counterinsurgency. In fact, they are being rolled up and exterminated daily.

So, I would quibble with your rather vague assertion that AQ is bigger or more effective due to the war. They had a period of operation which is now being denied to them. I would say that as a result of the surge, of the war, they are being destroyed.

You've put toegether all the various pieces I've been reading about what went wrong after Saddam's defeat, the Surge, the turning of the Sunni chieftains, and the current state of affairs.

Of course, with most news services in Baghdad and relying upon insurgent sources, Al-Q is hoping to cause enought trouble in Baghdad and other focused attacks to convince the media that all is lost, so that Congress snatches defeat out of the jaws of victory.

And Rightly So!

My sense is that it's over optimistic to suggest that because of the surge they are already being destroyed. AQ has proven to be pretty resistant and even General Patraeous says it could take as long as 9 years to achieve those goals.

since AQ is happily killing Shia in Iraq, with Shia Iran's blessing.

That's simply not true, nor are the assertions about Saddam and Al Qaeda before the war. Saddam and AQ were sworn enemies, and there is a mound of evidence showing it. The fact that there was a small degree of communication and tolerance between two Muslim groups which were basically opposed becomes false when it is exaggerated into "blessing".

It is the normal nature of things, that during periods when the fighting is undercover instead of hot, that enemy groups and countries have some form of communication, cooperate on some issues, and have some tolerance of each other's agents. One can easily see the same thing between the US and USSR during the Cold War, in addition to them fighting side by side against a common enemy in World War II.

These reports describe in great detail the massive infrastructure which a group calling itself "Al Qaeda" built up in Iraq:

First 5 Iraq Reports

None of this massive infrastructure was there while Saddam was in power. So if one equates "Al Qaeda in Iraq" with bin Laden's Al Qaeda (which is very debatable), then the AQ presence in Iraq has definitely grown.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

Here is the correct link:

Five Iraq reports

As I said earlier:

These reports describe in great detail the massive infrastructure which a group calling itself "Al Qaeda" built up in Iraq. None of this massive infrastructure was there while Saddam was in power. So if one equates "Al Qaeda in Iraq" with bin Laden's Al Qaeda (which is very debatable), then the AQ presence in Iraq has definitely grown. The reports are extensively footnoted.

I see the arguments here that this AQ in Iraq infrastructure is being dismantled. Others say that the Sunni Insurgency / Al Qaeda has mostly just moved elsewhere in Iraq, which is the standard approach for insurgencies and AQ specifically.

Here are a few quotes from the fifth report, showing a massive "Al Qaeda" presence in Iraq, nothing like a few AQ members who visited or contacted Iraq during the Saddam era:

Al Qaeda occupied several strongholds around the city of Baghdad long before Operation Enforcing the Law began: Fallujah (due west of Baghdad) clockwise to Karmah, Tarmiyah, Baqubah, Turki Village (disrupted in January), Salman Pak, Mahmoudiyah, and Sadr al- Yusifiyah (disrupted in January). Al Qaeda used its strongholds in the belts to move from place to place...

Karmah, a village twelve miles northeast of Fallujah, was likewise already a well-established al Qaeda safe haven when Operation Enforcing the Law began on February 14. On February 20, a U.S. battalion identified a fully established car bomb factory there,

Shaker al-Abssi is not affiliated with al Qaeda. He comes out of Arafat's Fatah movement and is the founder of Fatah al Islam.

Want to explain how your post has squat to do with anything unless you are willing to claim that the Provisional IRA bombmakers captured by the Israelis a few years ago are also al Qaeda?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

As you put it:

"I've always found reading a story before commenting on it tends to produce better results."

From the article:

"estimates that 50 to 60 fighters are still in the camp and they include skilled and determined militants from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen and Algeria who fought with the insurgency in Iraq.

The group’s leader, Shakir al-Abssi, was an associate of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia killed last summer. He has been sentenced to death in Jordan for helping Mr. Zarqawi organize the 2002 slaying of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan.

“One reason we attacked Abssi was to get a message to those people that you don’t have to come to Lebanon after your mission in Iraq,” General Rifi said. "

he was an associate of Zarqawi before Zarqawi went to Iraq. In fact, he was in a Jordanian prison when the USAID rep was killed.

Look, if you can't be bothered with reading or understanding you need to leave this thread. Don't try to play me for a chump.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Fine. I'm here to learn not to be insulted.

I didn't play you for a chump - your words (played back to you) did.

But you are ignorant of the facts.
Don't feel bad, one of the best tricks the disloyal opposition pulled was to get people to believe that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.
That is shown to be wrong by the facts.

I've always found reading a story before commenting on it tends to produce better results.

But because AQ is working out Iran, that means that AQ would have worked with Saddam?

The point which is clearly spelled out is that the idea that terrorist refuse to cooperate with regimes which they are hostile towards is simply false. And actually yes. Saddam helped Ansar al Islam, now known as al Qaeda in Iraq, to establish itself in northern Iraq.

Saddam was nothing if not unpredictable - trying to say what he would have or would not have done is an exercise in pure conjecture only.

If you ignore the results of four or five inquiries on the subject, yes. Otherwise, not so much.

If we move into the realm of fact, AQ is much, much stronger in Iraq right now than it was under Saddam.

But it is weaker in Afghanistan. It is obviously stronger in Iran. So what?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

I thought it was clear...

AQ weaker in Afghanistan is good news.

AQ stronger in Iran & Iraq is bad news.

This is the essence of what I wrote and what am being attacked for.

you are being required to defend some rather exotic statmennts and beclowning yourself in the process.

Is al Qaeda in Iran bad news? It shows the complicity of Iran in the Iraq violence (good news), it demonstrates Iran isn't a viable partner in negotiations in regards to Iraq (good news), it could create a casus belli with Iran (not bad news in my view, overt wars are better than covert wars in my book),Iran will have to deal with the mess they've created when the tribal levies in Anbar and Diyala finish shutting down al Qaeda there.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

"If we move into the realm of fact, AQ is much, much stronger in Iraq right now than it was under Saddam."

Sure it is. Saddam is no longer there to kill his own people. Someone has to fill the homicidal vacuum.

Do you think AQ is stronger overall than before 9/11? Of course not. They are being hunted down like the coward dogs that they are (when they aren't able to flee mosques dressed in burqas). They will continue to commit suicide until the ideology runs out of fanatical idiots. Just because our troops in Iraq are arranging more face time with Allah does not mean AQ are stronger. It just means more of them are dying in one place.

no doubt of that.

But, AQ is conducting more and larger attacks in more places than before and killing more people and getting support from more places.

So I don't agree.

they would cool their friendliness, while remaining sworn enemies of the U.S.

Jack
The World's Ruined