You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
Gasps from al Qaeda
2007-10-24
The last days on Earth of Abu Osama al-Tunisi apparently were filled with anxiety: "We are desperate for your help," he said in a letter to al Qaeda chieftains. A copy of the letter was found by U.S. troops sifting through the rubble of the building in Musayb, about 40 miles south of Baghdad, where on Sept. 25 al-Tunisi had been meeting with two local al Qaeda operatives when an F-16 cut their discussion short.

Al-Tunisi was a key member of the rapidly dwindling inner circle of Abu Ayoub al Masri, the al Qaeda chieftain in Iraq. Another key member, Abou Yaakoub al Masri, an intimate of Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, was killed Aug. 31 near the northern Baghdad suburb of Tarmiyah.

Al-Tunisi was responsible for bringing foreign al Qaeda recruits into Iraq and placing them in operational cells, U.S. military spokesmen said. That effort suffered a major blow when "Muthanna," the al Qaeda emir for the Iraq-Syrian border region, was killed in early September.

Al-Tunisi wasn't alone in calling for help. "Al Qaeda has lost half its leadership over the summer, and American intelligence collectors have amassed a huge number of desperate messages from al Qaeda leaders and operatives," said StrategyPage. The collapse of al Qaeda's networks in Iraq is the chief reason both U.S. casualties and Iraqi civilian deaths plunged in September, despite an increased operations tempo.

British Mideast expert Bartle Bull thinks it soon will be impossible to ignore the good news from Iraq. In an article this month in the British magazine Prospect titled "Mission accomplished," Mr. Bull wrote: "With most Sunni factions now seeking a deal, the big questions in Iraq have been resolved positively. The country remains one, it has embraced democracy and avoided all-out civil war."

The Sunnis, even the ex-Baathists, have turned on al Qaeda and are seeking a deal, and the predominantly Shia government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is willing to make one, Mr. Bull said. More than 14,000 Sunnis in Anbar Province, once al Qaeda's stronghold, have joined the Iraqi army and police since the troop surge began. "The Sunni insurgents have recognized that there is little point fighting a strong and increasingly skilled enemy — the United States — that is on the right side of Iraq's historical destiny and has a political leadership that ... responds to setbacks by trying harder," Mr. Bull said.
Posted by:Fred

#18  LH

my understanding is that elections for membership in the national legislature is scheduled for 2009

hopefully by then Sadr will be exiled
Posted by: mhw   2007-10-24 20:04  

#17  abu - I dont expect US troops to leave soon either. I was responding to Mike, who I thought implied they would, by saying the remainder of what happened was in internal Iraqi matter.

Perhaps he meant that it was such, despite US troops staying. If Maliki refuses compromise, and the Iraqi civil war restarts, maybe it will be possible for the US troops to stay to watch Iran, and ignore whats going on within Iraq. I personally doubt that that will be feasible for long, for a host of reasons.

MHW - remind, when ARE the next Iraqi elections scheduled? Unless we press for earlier elections than the Iraq constitution does (see "soft coup") We've got to put up with the current Iraqi leadership for awhile yet.

Im also dubious of the political utility of Sistani at this point. Been disappointed too many times.

Best bet of course, would be Shia local and tribal leaders, in place of SCIRI and Dawa and the Sadrists. I assume Petraeus is working that angle, but its not clear to me what success he is having.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2007-10-24 16:45  

#16  As things settle (assumption) and that becomes widely understood and accepted by the outside world ($$$), then money is going to flood into Iraq. This may be a couple of years down the road, but it sure looks like it could happen.

Iraq has way more than oil. It has huge economic potential. Count on the fact that there will be guidance aplenty to help realize this potential.

Should stability and rapid ecomonic growth come to pass the rabid left in this country and Europe are going to look like the fools they are. Even a modicum of stability will make them look like that. The regional repurcussions of Iraqi success will be felt for years.
Posted by: remoteman   2007-10-24 14:37  

#15  even the WaPo and NYT will have to have stories

You're niave, all you'll hear is a deafening silence.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2007-10-24 13:51  

#14  I expect that there will be a whole lot of backroom deals between Sistani and Maliki in the next few months, bringing the largest Shia parties onboard with a series of deals being cut with the Sunni parties. With the level of oil field rehabilitation, exploration, and exploitation now starting up, there is enough oil money and/or futures to buy everyone off. Also, Sistani is the head of the nationalist Shia faction and does NOT like the Iranians - which means the Sunnis will be able to work with him. Watch Sistani become Iraq's Boss Tweed for the next several years, handing out the contracts and managing the graft to an acceptable level.
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2007-10-24 13:21  

#13  Get it through your head, Liberalhawk, US forces are NOT leaving Iraq. Even if Hildebeast wins in 2008 the US forces are there to stay if for no other reason than to prevent Iran from threatening Kuwait and Soddy Arabia. Hildebeast may be a commie but she is not all that stupid. She must know that if the oil stops flowing she will only get four years instead of eight. Maliki will compromise because it will be made clear to him that he has no choice. They will have corruption and they will have internal conflicts but who doesn't?
Posted by: Abu Uluque6305   2007-10-24 11:59  

#12  A heartfelt welcome to you and the other new posters, malibu_shrade! I do apologize that I've been remiss in not saying so sooner, since I've been selfishly enjoying reading what y'all have to say, and I look forward to more. :-D
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-10-24 11:58  

#11  Even under the best scenario we will still have 40k troops there in mid 2009.

With luck, the next election cycle in Iraq will feature a homegrown Iraqi hero (maybe one of their special forces commanders) or better yet, a consortium of Iraqi heros. With a bit more luck, Sistani will not issue the implied 'vote shia' message that he did last time.
Posted by: mhw   2007-10-24 11:23  

#10  Mike, if we leave Iraq to an uncompromising Maliki govt, and walk away, then its probably not long before another Sunni rebellion breaks out, and AQ comes back in trying to get in on it.

The US defeated the CSA with American forces. We didnt rely on outside forces that were going to leave after Appomattox. Had we done so, the war would have restarted after those forces left.

Maybe by 2009 the Maliki govt is strong enough to maintain order without us. Doesnt look that way now though.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2007-10-24 10:54  

#9  Someone needs to tell AQ they can find the sympathy they want in the dictionary between sh*t and syphillis.

BTW, first post but long time reader . . enjoy the posts from TW, Zenster, and all of you all
Posted by: malibu_shrade   2007-10-24 10:41  

#8  suppose, thanks to Petraeus, we really do eliminate AQ and all remaining Sunni factions want to negotiate, and are reasonable about it. And suppose Maliki et al still wont compromise.

What do we do then? Push Maliki out?

At that point, it becomes an issue of Iraq's internal governance, and the Iraqi people get to resolve it at the ballot box. Probably long before then, the Sunni will get the same deal Robert E. Lee got at Appomattox: cease fire, lay down your arms, go home and live in peace.
Posted by: Mike   2007-10-24 10:03  

#7  "In early Nov when the Oct fatality numbers are complete and, hopefully no big helo crashes or other tragedies, even the WaPo and NYT will have to have stories on the favorable turn in the Iraq situation.

They will probably place it in the page 4-8 area and they will spin it as a recovery from mistakes, etc. but they will have to cover it. "

That spin will play into the hands of the faction of left neo-cons and (the dwindling band of) liberal hawks who've said that there were abundant, even criminal mistakes made in the implementation of policy, but that Iraq was still winnable. It doesnt do much for the real doves. WaPo can spin it that way much easier than the NYT, forex. Or TNR (even under its new leadership) than Harpers.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2007-10-24 09:53  

#6  suppose, thanks to Petraeus, we really do eliminate AQ and all remaining Sunni factions want to negotiate, and are reasonable about it. And suppose Maliki et al still wont compromise.

What do we do then? Push Maliki out?
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2007-10-24 09:48  

#5  "spin it as a recovery from mistakes"

And it may well be just that. But we will never really know. Looking backward we may now believe the path taken was wrong (too small force, disbanded Iarqi army etc.), but if we had taken THAT path we might be sitting here today looking backward and discussing the problems we caused by the mistakes of too large a US footprint and a destabilizing effect of a large independent Iraqi army. Leaders have to make a decision and go with it, then adapt as circumstances and knowledge dictate. Throughout American military history it is that adaptability (top to bottom), absent in most forces, which has made us successful.
Posted by: Glenmore   2007-10-24 09:44  

#4  In early Nov when the Oct fatality numbers are complete and, hopefully no big helo crashes or other tragedies, even the WaPo and NYT will have to have stories on the favorable turn in the Iraq situation.

They will probably place it in the page 4-8 area and they will spin it as a recovery from mistakes, etc. but they will have to cover it.
Posted by: mhw   2007-10-24 08:14  

#3  The Islamists also have to consider that RUSSIA-CHINA/SCO-CSTO, or at least Russia anyways, would like to be the BYZANTIUM to America's ROME, iff only PC economically??? *REALCLEARPOLITICS > RUSSIA IS DOING VERY WELL, OR IS IT? article.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-10-24 05:09  

#2  The popular uprising that started a year ago in Anbar, traditional leaders against international terrorist ideologues, will eventually spread through the entire Muslim world.
It will not just affect AQ either. Other sheiks will look at Iraq and see that they, too, can defy Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Massive media support could not save the transnational terror gangs in Anbar and it will not save them elsewhere. Indeed, the detestable media beasts will be lucky to save themselves.
The revolt will eventually reach the Northwest Frontier Province and we will either get Osama we will confirm that he is dead.
Posted by: Lord Piltdown   2007-10-24 04:47  

#1  British Mideast expert Bartle Bull thinks it soon will be impossible to ignore the good news from Iraq. In an article this month in the British magazine Prospect titled ¡°Mission accomplished,¡± Mr. Bull wrote: ¡°With most Sunni factions now seeking a deal, the big questions in Iraq have been resolved positively. The country remains one, it has embraced democracy and avoided all-out civil war.¡±

Way hard for the MSM tho... the loss on investment..

P is for pity.. and them needs all our PITY now more than evers, just think on the bushel baskets filled up wid the *Templates of Doom* that be all worthless now...

Waaaaaa i want my mommie..
Posted by: Red Dawg   2007-10-24 02:43  

00:00