Redstate

of the story, my first thought was "both."

I do think the Iraqi insurgency is in the dying proccess-but isn't dead yet, and the more control the Iraqi's get of their country, I think the less they are going to tolerate those who would seek to weaken it.

That said, I don't think we are going to be done and gone in 6 months.  Getting Iraq stable is going to take time, and the WOT in general is going to take time.  

pointed out that the Eastern mind is different than ours.  Americans are quick microwave people, Easterners do things more slowly and relationally.  When asking the IRAQI'S how long it will take some of their soldiers have said 5 years for a complete pullout.

Accordinding to a PSYOPS officer I recently heard from, the populiarity of the US occupation is at least 70 percent.  

Mentioning Somalia was a great point.  Tommy Franks book "American soldier" has also been very enlightening for me...

In the 90's under Clinton...

1. We fired some rockets ar Saddam
   
   
2. We fired some rockets at Osama
   
   
3. We got our buts kicked in Somalia
   

Ass to that the pull out in Vietnam, and we see why our enemies must be shown that America has the same resolve that we did when we were founded; the resolve to STAY THE COURSE!

typo-sorry, it's early

"I think their capacity stays about the same and where they are right now is where they were almost a year ago," he[Myers] said.

April 27 2005

While foreign fighters make up only around five percent of the overall insurgency, they are causing disproportionate damage with suicide attacks, the officer said.

May 30 2005

Of 81 Iraqi army battalions assessed, only three were rated green, able to conduct operations independently. Of 26 larger brigade headquarters formed so far, only one earned such a rating, according to officers familiar with the confidential assessment.

Previously, the U.S. military had measured progress by simply reporting how many members of the Iraqi military and police had been "trained and equipped" -- a figure that topped 165,000 last week -- and how many military and special police battalions had become "operational" -- currently 101. With the new approach, statistics are available on the quality of the force.

...

Of 75,800 Iraqi army troops listed as trained and equipped, only about 4,000 are identified as performing support functions, according to U.S. figures. By contrast, in the U.S. Army, the proportion of combat forces to support elements -- known in military jargon as the "tooth-to-tail" ratio -- is closer to 50/50.

May 18 2005

The insurgency has not weakened, is overwhelmingly Iraqi and is not faced with a competent or sufficently large Iraqi security force.

"Our withdrawal from Somalia demonstrated to Osama bin Laden that the United States was a paper tiger that could be defeated by superior will. Al-Qaeda is still playing by that playbook."

Osama's not IN Iraq, and there's no evidence that he has anything to do with the insurgency there.

Osama wasn't in Somalia either, but his fighters certainly were.

It is beyond question that al-Qaeda is heavily involved in Iraq, and the current operational head of al-Qaeda, Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi is also the head of Qaeda operations in Iraq. The argument that al-Qaeda and the "insurgency" in Iraq are totally unconnected is completely and utterly untrue, and al-Qaeda itself has repeatedly made reference to its efforts in Iraq.

You are correct that al-Qaida is definitely involved in Iraq, even if UBL physically isn't there. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of jihadist forces there, formally merged with al-Qaida in October 2004. Before that, the first poster would have been somewhat correct.

However, I still would make a very big distinction between the insurgency there and the foreign fighters there. Semantics, yes, but it's important to characterize the conflict correctly.  There have been some indications of the indigenous insurgency and the foreign fighters working together especially in a logistical way, but there are many differences, distinctions, and very very different end goals.

Boston Globe:

'... recent internal poll conducted for the US-led coalition found that nearly 45 percent of the population supported the insurgent attacks, making accurate intelligence difficult to obtain. Only 15 percent of those polled said they strongly supported the US-led coalition.'

     If these figures are correct, the insurgency does indeed have a significant base of support.  While incorporating Sunnis into the political process will have some effect if its successful (a big if), its not going to dry up the entire insurgency.    

     As for the foreign fighters, I'm not sure if they need much domestic support beyond their own networks. Sure they would have much less information without one, and much more information about them would be supplied to the coaltion, but it doesn't take all that much to blow up a car in the middle of a crowded area.   Even if the Iraqi Sunni insurgency dries up, the problem of foreign terrorist will remain for a long time.

You are correct that al-Qaida is definitely involved in Iraq, even if UBL physically isn't there. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of jihadist forces there, formally merged with al-Qaida in October 2004. Before that, the first poster would have been somewhat correct.

Actually, Zarqawi was in Iraq at least a year before the war began. After escaping from Tora Bora, he ended up in Baghdad sometime in 2002 and from there he organized the assassination of US diplomat Laurence Foley in Amman, Jordan. The Mukhabarat (Saddam's state security apparatus) knew who Zarqawi was, but chose not to do anything about him.

Zarqawi himself may have formally sworn fealty to al-Qaeda in late 2004, but he's had a long relationship with al-Qaeda. He ran a terrorist training camp outside of Herat during 2001 - no group would have been allowed to run a camp inside Afghanistan without the express approval of bin Laden. It's arguable if he was a formal member of al-Qaeda at this time, but he certainly was an ally.

However, I still would make a very big distinction between the insurgency there and the foreign fighters there. Semantics, yes, but it's important to characterize the conflict correctly.  There have been some indications of the indigenous insurgency and the foreign fighters working together especially in a logistical way, but there are many differences, distinctions, and very very different end goals.

A very good point to make, especially now that the fault lines between the foreign fighters and the native Iraqis are beginning to show in open conflict...

Osama's not IN Iraq, and there's no evidence that he has anything to do with the insurgency there.

There is evidence, but the manstream media hides it.  

This ran on MSNBC for one day until they pulled it...

"U.S. nets 'key player' in Iraqi insurgency"

Abu Talha, whose capture was

announced Thursday, is shown in a picture handed out by the Coalition Press

Information Center.

The Associated Press

Updated: 3:36 p.m. ET June 16,

2005

Talha

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S. military said Thursday that a key leader of

Iraq's insurgency had been arrested in Mosul. Mohammed Khalaf, also known as Abu Talha, was said to have directed operations for the extremist group Al-Qaida in

Iraq, headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"Talha was one of al-Zarqawi's

most trusted operation agents in Iraq," said U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Don

Alston. "This is a major defeat for al-Qaida terrorist organization in Iraq.

Al-Zarqawi's leader in Mosul is out of business."

that approval for the US is more like 70 percent.

Possibly among the others things to come from the west is our dishonest habit of "push-polling."  Those of you that have worked elections will be familiar with this unethical practice.

An Iraqi newspaper ran a survey showing only 17% support for the insurgency, and mainly among the Sunnis. (I wish I could remember which paper it was - anyone know?) Given that the insurgents are spending most of their time targeting innocent Iraqis, it seems unlikely to me that there'd be much broad popular support for people who behead aid workers and blow up cafeterias full of Iraqi citizens.

Good points.

At this point its certainly evident that Al Qaeda is in Iraq, and OBL has a significant amount of influence with Al Qaeda.

However, I haven't forgotten that Al Qaeda was NOT in iraq under Saddam.  The invasion of iraq by american forces was like a vacuum cleaner, dragging al qaeda recruits who were diluted all over the middle east, and focused them on Iraq.  Its unfortunate, because with the oil that Iraq has, it would be very dangerous to let al qaeda 'win' this fight.   Had bush been smart, he would have kept the emphasis all on Afghanistan, which is a far less dangerous place to let al qaeda 'win' (if it came down to that) or at least focus their efforts.  In other words, Al qaeda was going to go wherever we went.  bush chose Iraq, which unneccessarily raised the stakes enormously.

Zarqawi himself may have formally sworn fealty to al-Qaeda in late 2004, but he's had a long relationship with al-Qaeda. He ran a terrorist training camp outside of Herat during 2001 - no group would have been allowed to run a camp inside Afghanistan without the express approval of bin Laden. It's arguable if he was a formal member of al-Qaeda at this time, but he certainly was an ally.

That's why the first poster would have been only somewhat correct pre-October 2004...formal alliances or not, al-Zarqawi was part of the al-Qaida "movement". However, there was at least a legitimate debate going on then as to whether al-Zarqawi was considered AQ or not. Now, the point, as Joey from Friends would say, is moo.

of US occupation, 70 percent don't mind.  This could also mean the other 30 percent are grateful for what we did, but would like to see us go.  I would love to see our troops come home-they would love to come home-after Iraq is stabilized.

I agree with you. We'll leave that part at that, since I don't feel like starting a debate about the validity or nonvalidity of the "shine the light and the cockroaches will come" approach.

However, a quick correction: the poster above you does point out that al-Zarqawi, formal AQ member or not, was in Iraq. However, that would be, operating in Iraq most likely without Saddam's permission, so your overall point in my opinion stands.

However, I haven't forgotten that Al Qaeda was NOT in iraq under Saddam.  The invasion of iraq by american forces was like a vacuum cleaner, dragging al qaeda recruits who were diluted all over the middle east, and focused them on Iraq.  Its unfortunate, because with the oil that Iraq has, it would be very dangerous to let al qaeda 'win' this fight.   Had bush been smart, he would have kept the emphasis all on Afghanistan, which is a far less dangerous place to let al qaeda 'win' (if it came down to that) or at least focus their efforts.  In other words, Al qaeda was going to go wherever we went.  bush chose Iraq, which unneccessarily raised the stakes enormously.

There's two main problems with that line of analysis. The first is that al-Qaeda was in Iraq before the war. Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad sometime in mid-2002 and planned the assassination of US diplomat Laurence Foley from Baghdad. He also helped plan the attempted attack of the US embassy in Jordan with chemical weapons from Baghdad.

Secondly, Afghanistan didn't have much strategic importance to al-Qaeda. The Taliban were willing hosts and provided some safe haven, nothing more. The core of al-Qaeda has always been the Arab world.

In order to defeat al-Qaeda, we have to change the conditions in the Arab world that spawned it -  and that means introducing the concepts of democracy and pluralism there. Al-Qaeda abandoned Afghanistan fairly quickly because they knew that it wasn't of great strategic importance from them. Had we done nothing but twiddle our thumbs there while al-Qaeda regrouped elsewhere, the terrorists currently being engaged in Baghdad and Karabila would be in New York or Detroit planning their next attack.

70 percent Iraqi support for US

10 percent insurgency

7 percent foreign fighters

13 percent Iraqi's want U.S. out, but not anti-US.

From the Washington Post, May 13, 2004:

"82 Percent of Iraqis Oppose US Occupation

By Thomas E. Ricks

Four out of five Iraqis report holding a negative view of the U.S. occupation authority and of coalition forces, according to a new poll conducted for the occupation authority. In the poll, 80 percent of Iraqis surveyed reported a lack of confidence in the Coalition Provisional Authority, and 82 percent said they disapprove of the United States and allied militaries in Iraq.

Although comparative numbers from previous polls are not available, "generally speaking, the trend is downward," said Donald Hamilton, a senior counselor to civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer. The occupation authority has been commissioning such surveys in Iraq since late last year, he said. This one was taken in Baghdad and several other Iraqi cities in late March and early last month, before the surge in anti-coalition violence and the detainee-abuse scandal.

The findings appeared consistent with a poll taken about the same time by USA Today, CNN and Gallup, which found that 57 percent of Iraqis wanted foreign troops to leave immediately."

---Although this is over a year old, it casts doubt on the idea that 70% support the US presence. If anything, the number that want US troops to stay has probably decreased.

While it is possible that these poll numbers are wrong, I'd say a Gallup pole reported in the Washington Post is more reliable than speculation from a friend.

in AQ is required anyway.

During WWII Germany and Japan were allies, and both were considered enemies, just as the US, GB and USSR were allies, and the Germans and Japanese considered them all enemies.

AQ and Al Zarqawi's group, along with several other Islamofascist groups are allies in their fight against the West.  In the end they are all trying to kill us, and we want to stop them.

Nit picking whether or not Zarqawi is in AQ mischaractarizes the WOT as a War on AQ.

testimony of real life soldiers who have their boots on the ground in Iraq.

You can go to Military.com and follow any of the threads to get more info, along with names, rank, and exact location of service.

We all know a poll is all in how you word it.

If you go where are soldiers are training and supplying goods and ask, "So, what do you think about what the Americans are doing here?" The people will probably say , "good!  good!"

If you go where a building has just been blown up and ask, "In light of all the destruction caused by your fellow Iraqi's willing to give their lives to get rid of the Americans, are you for or against American occupation of YOUR land?"

Many will probably say, "This destruction is bad-get them out."

At this time the Iraqi people have no reference point.  Under Saddam there was

1. Water and Power
   
   
2. Economy
   
   
3. No or few suicide bombers
   

(of course there were also mass graves, etc.)

We Americans blew a lot of stuff up.  We are rebuilding.  The economy will improve.  Now if the suicide attacks can be slowed and/or stopped they are on the road to a better life.

If people are thinking of themsleves and short-term, they will answer very differently than if they thinking of the good of the group and long term.

A great site to keep an eye on is

http://www.adayiniraq.com/

He wrote in his last post regarding a town filled with hardcore Sunni's

"It's not all bad here. These people don't all hate us. Even some of the grownups don't seem to mind our presence. One man even grabbed his wife and posed for a picture."

isn't the same as support for the insurgency.

Also that poll is a year old, a lot has changed in Iraq over the past year, to make that poll worth much.  It is like using a Poll on the DNC candidates in November 2003 to make a claim as to how much they support Dean in June of 2004 (we all know by that point Dean was long gone).

you're putting the cart before the horse.

We didn't go to Iraq because al qaeda abandoned afghanistan, although it wouldn't surprise me to see Cheney start claiming that was the case.  We went to Iraq because of their violations of UN resolutions, no ... ties to 9/11, no .... WMDS, no .... freedom!  

There are ~10,000 US troops in afghanistan, and a fairly intact warlord militia to maintain order.  Taking over Afghanistan would grant you access to one of the worlds least valuable resources ..... sand and rock.

There are ~120,000 US troops in Iraq, and NO real internal structure to maintain order.  Taking over Iraq would grant you access to one of the worlds MOST valuable resources, .... oil.

If you were al qaeda, and your mission is to fight americans, where would YOU go?  Its a double-bonus situation in Iraq if you're an al qaeda member.

Had we not invaded, Saddam was quite effective at maintaining order, there's very little evidence that Iraq was becoming a breeding ground for Al qaeda under Saddam.  Sure, one or even several guys could infiltrate Iraq if they wanted.  But it wasn't a genuine 'movement'.

Zarqawi probably could read the writing on the wall .... bush wanted to invade iraq.  So that's where he fled.  Alternatively, since he fled Jordan, for all we know he was on his way to Afghanistan...

You have to remember that on the morning of 9/11 we had 19 Al Qaeda on US soil.   That doesn't mean we were 'colluding' with them, anymore than Zarqawi hiding out in Iraq shows that Saddam 'colluded' with al qaeda.

Al qaeda followed us to Iraq, there's tons of evidence to support that conclusion, including the 9/11 report which showed no involvment between saddam and al qaeda.

you forgot was that we went to Afghanistan for the pipeline.

Halliburton!!!!!!!!!!!!

A statement of common sense that nobody ever mentions.

At this time the Iraqi people have no reference point.  Under Saddam there was

1. Water and Power
   
2. Economy
   
3. No or few suicide bombers

(of course there were also mass graves, etc.)

We Americans blew a lot of stuff up.  We are rebuilding.  The economy will improve.  Now if the suicide attacks can be slowed and/or stopped they are on the road to a better life.

Well said.  Its important to imagine yourself as an 'average' Iraqi, just trying to support your family and leave more for your children than you had.

Now imagine this:

For 30 years Saddam ruled with an Iron fist.  You had to watch what you said, don't say anything bad about him in public OR private.

But your kids had school, you had a job, you didn't worry about being shot or having your house blown up, or having your workplace looted or ransacked.  You may have heard about distant happenings like Kurds being killed by Saddam, but who likes those dirty Kurds anyway? (just giving a plausible sentiment here)

Now come the US forces to 'Liberate' you!  At first its great, now you can tell Saddam to go f- himself.  This freedom is great!!!  Wait a minute.  Now my home is being looted, my kid's schools are shut down, I don't have water or electricity, I almost got blown up leaving the market today, etc, etc.  

Ok, now give it time.  Give the US time to restore order.

Well?  Its been 2 or 3 years now?  We still risk being blown up to go buy bread, we still risk being shot at, the looting is a little less, and 2 of my 5 kids can now go to school.

So, was it better under Saddam or not (for the average Iraqi)?   Remember, these people have NO REFERENCE POINT as suggested by rightfielder.  They don't see the long-term picture and how good we have it in the US and rest of the western world.  They've simply never lived under such conditions to know what its like.  Likewise, we have NO REFERENCE POINT for their culture.  Every culture is different in what it emphasizes.  Most people on the planet prefer the concept of democracy in principle, but they may not feel it is the most important thing.  For example, in many people's eyes, service to god is more important than one's form of government.  In some people's eyes, the church should be the government (not a democratic concept).

With that said, its worth acknowleding that its possible to do the right things, be there for the right reasons and still not 'win'.  If what the local people fundamentally want isn't what the US wants, we will lose.  Vietnam shows this perfectly.  We wanted non-communism.  They wanted independence.  They had wanted it for 1,000 years and fought every day of that 1,000 years against their occupier.

How many of you really know the culture of Iraq and know what its people want?  Do they want to be self-governed (even under a broken system), or do they want to be occupied by a force of foreigners who claim to bring them a better life?

We didn't go to Iraq because al qaeda abandoned afghanistan, although it wouldn't surprise me to see Cheney start claiming that was the case.  We went to Iraq because of their violations of UN resolutions, no ... ties to 9/11, no .... WMDS, no .... freedom!

I know some people have trouble getting it through their skulls, but you generally don't go to war based solely on one and only one causus belli. One would think that the party of "nuance" would be able to understand that we had a number of goals both short- and long-term in mind in the decisionmaking process to remove Saddam.

Had we not invaded, Saddam was quite effective at maintaining order, there's very little evidence that Iraq was becoming a breeding ground for Al qaeda under Saddam.  Sure, one or even several guys could infiltrate Iraq if they wanted.  But it wasn't a genuine 'movement'.

Quite the contrary. In 1998 none other than Richard Clarke had a very legitimate fear that Saddam Hussein would offer sanctuary to Osama bin Laden. From the 9/11 Commission report we know that al-Qaeda and Iraq had ties to each other, although they were not operational ties. We now know that the Mukhabarat did know that al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that he was planning attacks but decided not to move on him for fear of reprisal by al-Qaeda.

And at the time, all available intelligence suggested that Saddam Hussein had significant amounts of WMD material that could have been passed off to terrorists. Granted, we no know that intelligence was not as solid as it was made out to be, but at the time we had every reason to believe it was.

You have to remember that on the morning of 9/11 we had 19 Al Qaeda on US soil.   That doesn't mean we were 'colluding' with them, anymore than Zarqawi hiding out in Iraq shows that Saddam 'colluded' with al qaeda

Which again, is a false comparison. We didn't know that we had al-Qaeda agents in the US, while Saddam did know who Zarqawi was and allowed him to plan the assassination of Laurence Foley from Baghdad. We also know that the Jordanians demanded that Zarqawi be extradited to Jordan, and the Iraqis did not comply.

Al qaeda followed us to Iraq, there's tons of evidence to support that conclusion, including the 9/11 report which showed no involvment between saddam and al qaeda.

Again, we know that Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before the outbreak of the war and he did plan at least two terrorist attacks while in Baghdad. The facts of that case are no longer in contention.

is a little frightening for some people.  So I am free now... to do what?

Some birds stop singing and begin to shake all over when you take them out of their cages.

When I was in Russia the last time, there was an article by an old guy who desperately wanted to bring back communism. When he saw his grand daughter's doll with no clothes he was horrified to find out that it had sex parts.  He bemoaned the fact that at least under Stalin they retained their dignity and modesty with the little wooden Matryoshkas.

We take for granted freedoms that while liberating for younger Iraqi's, are probably horrifying to the older generation.

Wouldn't it be a shock to any culture if one week women were walking and wearing long robes and burkas, the next they were driving trucks and wearing mini-skirts?

and considering now that al-Qaida has decentralized to the point that it's a movement, not a central network, we shouldn't nit pick it to death. However, if some group isn't assessed to be part of the larger movement (and the larger movement NOT requiring fealty per se), we should be aware, because it speaks to different end goals, strategies, and perhaps tactics. Being aware helps us counter each group in the most effective way. That being said, I believe Zarqawi was always part of the larger movement, even pre-fealty.

I'm not saying that I have the right view, but it's still positively and definitively in contention, including among the policy and intelligence community, whether or not al-Zarqawi was operating with Saddam's consent. It's also in contention whether or not having all the terrorists flow to Iraq was beneficial or extremely detrimental. Just because there is evidence that may support your claim does not mean that there isn't evidence to the contrary, and not everyone who disagrees with you (not just responding to Jay here, btw) is a liberal or is aiming to bring up the Haliburton strawman.

as you make it out to be.

We didn't know that we had al-Qaeda agents in the US

Actually we did -- some agencies knew some of the guys were in the country at the time.  The information didn't make it up the chain in time to assemble the big picture.  

Likewise, look at how long it took us to find the freeway snipers (Malvo and cohort).  We knew the snipers were in the country, why couldn't we find them!?  It takes time to find criminals in the midst of ANY society, authoritarian or not.  

Now given that bush was already rattling the invasion saber in Saddams face at that time, I'm pretty sure Saddam wasn't spending much time worrying about Zarqawi.

while Saddam did know who Zarqawi was and allowed him to plan the assassination of Laurence Foley from Baghdad.

Once again, our situation during 9/11 holds many of those same distinctions.  We knew some of the men were in the country.  They planned and executed a terrorist attack right under our noses.  Assuming that 9/11 was unpreventable but that the assassination of Foley could have been prevented, is just that ... assuming.

We also know that the Jordanians demanded that Zarqawi be extradited to Jordan, and the Iraqis did not comply.

Yes, and tell me on how good of terms are Jordan and Iraq?  If Iran demanded that we capture an ex-patriot of theirs and send him back, would we?  Jordan and Iraq have not historically been close allies.

But opposition to occupation is hardly uncorrelated with support for the insurgency.  The two are related somewhat, but probably not through a 1:1 correlation.  Noone knows if its a 1:2, 1:10 or 1:100 correlation.

Recent polls would be nice, but its a bit dangerous for pollsters to go running around with a clipboard and pencil.   That in itself suggests what the real situation is like over there.

reports that it is functioning pretty well outside the Sunni Triangle (one of the things you see on most of the military blogs is that the reporters rarely leave the greenzone-that would be like going to Ireland during the height of the troubles, and staying only in Belfast-the reality is that even during the height of those times, the majority of Ireland-and Northern Ireland were peaceful).

Also, it doesn't help that the insurgents make things like water, oil pipelines, power lines and police officers/Iraqi military the main focus of their attacks.