| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Intel Chief says 30,000 Terrorists in Iraq: Attacks Will End Within Year |
| 2005-01-05 |
| EFL As many as 30,000 well-trained terrorists are actively operating throughout Iraq at the behest of former regime leaders based in Syria, Iraq's intelligence chief said in Wednesday edition of a pan-Arab newspaper. Maj. Gen. Mohammed Abdullah al-Shahwani told the daily newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat that the men, who are well-organized and trained, include former Baath party members, Islamic militant groups and unemployed former army members. "We officially call them terrorists," he told the London-based newspaper. "They are between 20,000 and 30,000 armed men operating all over Iraq, mainly in the Sunni areas where they receive moral support from about 200,000 people." "Whether these attacks would increase or decrease, this depends on the elections result. But our expectation, as a security organ, is that the attacks will recede and end in one year," he said. Al-Shahwani said insurgent activities in Fallujah have receded since a U.S.-Iraqi military campaign last month but leading members fled to different areas. Al-Shahwani was pensioned by Saddam in 1984 and defected from Iraq in 1990. He formed an opposition military group backed by the U.S. administration. Saddam executed several members of his group, including al-Shahwani's three sons. |
| Posted by:sludj |
| #19 That last should read "Back Up" - not Back Off. No hostility implied. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-05 10:24:02 PM |
| #18 Joe - you missed the point. I was pointing out tha math was NOT in the Sunni's side. The math does not favor the insurrection - that way my whole point. The Sunnis and Tawhidists (Al Zarqawi) are going to lose. That's what I pointed out and you seem to ahve completely missed. You also have a flawed understanding of the culture there. As for "Tater" (as we call him here), if he has truly chosen to "go legit", then he will be as shackled to the process as he could be - making him less and less of a threat for violence. As for jailing him or killing him, that would have made him a martyr, and we'd be talking about 80% of the population as a base for the rebellion. Your emoitional response is understandable - its mine too, but its dead wrong. Reality says a "political" Sadr is better than a dead one, at this point in time. The time to take Sadr out is long past (should have been after he killed the cleric whose place he has usurped). All your wishing will not change the circumstances. As a wise ofl First Sgt one told me: Wish in 1 hand and sh*t in the other, see which fills up first. And the Iraqis will NEVER defer to the Persians - they hate them - many there still remember the lives lost in the war against Iran,a nd they blame the Iranians, not Saddam. Sistani knows this aversion to Iranians/persians - and is looking forward to moving the center of Shia muslim activity to Iraq - under the supervision of Iraqi Shia, who control the top religious shrines and schools - thats a ton of money and world-wide power, not local power limited to Iraqs borders. Sistani knows the pitfalls inherent in trying to govern - he has a prime example of how not to do tings over in Iran, with al the unrest,e tc going on there. He is willing to claim the "moral high ground", and gripe about the bad government while not doing anything about it. That way he constantly is seen as "looking out for the little Moslem" without being stuck with actually DOING anything for them. He get s all the power without the responsibility. And his control of Shia Islam will be a big struggle for him and the Iraqis, much too big for him to divert too much into domestic politics except by proxy. So your worries about an Iranian-style Islamic Republic are far overblown. As is your self-destructive vengance towrd Al Sadr. Back off and really read the things I said. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-05 10:06:20 PM |
| #17 Mrs Davis - a bit of math correction. 7,000,000 males, 20% are Sunni. This is their potential pool, 1.4 million. 200,000 PEOPLE are sympathizers, of which at most 1/2 are male. Thats 100,000 Males, of which there are 40% that are of the prime target demographic. Thats 80,000 in their recruiting pool. In general, any time you tap more than 1/8 (15%) of your pool, you've broken sustainability (c.f. France 1917, Germany 1944). So their sustainable level is 10,000. And that assumes they have a society of 200,000 actively supporting them with weaponry, finances, logistics, and training. As that 200,000 shrinks from demographic exhaustion (I.e. its not a self sustaining demographic - its not growing at all, and as peopel get tired of it, they are dropping off the supporters), so will the mazx sustainable pool. Now with a maximum sustainable size of 10,000, they are at double to triple that in size. This means they will not be able to replce losses, and that finance, training and weaponry will be in sever short supply once they work through thier pre-war reserves and caches. Add to that the US/MNF emphasis on finding and eliminating caches, leadership and suppliers - and you have a system approaching a catastrophic failure point, much like the French Army in WW-1. And they will collapse for the same reasons the French did, unliek the Germans in WW2. The quality of officers and NCOs available is dismal for the criminals elements. Former street thugs and terrorists do not make good field commanders in terms of strategy and sustaining a large rebeliion. It takes military men with solid generalship skills - like Giap in Vietnam, or Von Manstien in Germany. The math is not on thier side - and its only a matter of keepin g the pressure on untilthe tipping point is reached, and being smart enough to seeing that tipping point and going all-out on the offensive with everything we (MNF and Iraq) have at that point in time. For an example of the collapse, see Afghnistan and the Taliban. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-05 9:40:36 PM |
| #16 Here's the problem for the bad guys: the Salafists and Baathists who are driving this are going to lose out when the elections go forward. The Sunni who participate will be greatly rewarded, and those opposed will be seen for what they are, Baathist thugs and Tawhid extremists, bascially criminal elements. The continued turnout of Iraqis of all stripes for the Armed Forces and police, in the face of murderous terrorism, is a strong indicator that the bad guys will lose. The enrichment and economic recovery of the pacified areas (a vast maority of the country) are already becoming the envy of the Sunni - they see their negihbors gettingjbos, starting and running businesses, and being able to live a normal life, while they are dominated by Saudi Salafists, Syrian thugs, and their own worst criminal elements. Support ius already waning, given that the criminal elements there have targeted and killed far more Muslims, destroyed far more of thier own property and caused far more misery of thier own peopel then they have done to Americans. This big vulture is coming to rest, and if the US can finally seal off Syria and the bandits they are supporting, and pressure Iran (internal distractions there are quite nice at keeping the Black Turban gang there busy) in order to secure the borders - the insurgency will choke off and die - there is not enough local support to sustain it at these levels. Add to that, there are undoubtedly more Fallujah/Najaf type pacification operations set to go in places in the Sunni Triangle - and there are already inroads being made in the Hafia street area of Baghdad (Sadr City). And the best news of all is the Sadr himself is running a whole pile of candidates and doing a "get out the vote" routine - he's finally figured out he can get more by massing all those poor voters in his area than he can by fighting US troops and dying in droves. Like him or not, his guys will have a serious part in the future government of Iraq (meaning look for money and govt programs to be tossed into Sadr City - where he can control disbursement, like his father did). Its not all as bad as the press would have you believe. This info is out ther in the public, but the US press simply doesnt report much of it because it doesnt fit their agenda (they are still trying to make this into Vietnam). |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-05 9:28:31 PM |
| #15 That last should read "Back Up" - not Back Off. No hostility implied. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-05 10:24:02 PM |
| #14 Joe - you missed the point. I was pointing out tha math was NOT in the Sunni's side. The math does not favor the insurrection - that way my whole point. The Sunnis and Tawhidists (Al Zarqawi) are going to lose. That's what I pointed out and you seem to ahve completely missed. You also have a flawed understanding of the culture there. As for "Tater" (as we call him here), if he has truly chosen to "go legit", then he will be as shackled to the process as he could be - making him less and less of a threat for violence. As for jailing him or killing him, that would have made him a martyr, and we'd be talking about 80% of the population as a base for the rebellion. Your emoitional response is understandable - its mine too, but its dead wrong. Reality says a "political" Sadr is better than a dead one, at this point in time. The time to take Sadr out is long past (should have been after he killed the cleric whose place he has usurped). All your wishing will not change the circumstances. As a wise ofl First Sgt one told me: Wish in 1 hand and sh*t in the other, see which fills up first. And the Iraqis will NEVER defer to the Persians - they hate them - many there still remember the lives lost in the war against Iran,a nd they blame the Iranians, not Saddam. Sistani knows this aversion to Iranians/persians - and is looking forward to moving the center of Shia muslim activity to Iraq - under the supervision of Iraqi Shia, who control the top religious shrines and schools - thats a ton of money and world-wide power, not local power limited to Iraqs borders. Sistani knows the pitfalls inherent in trying to govern - he has a prime example of how not to do tings over in Iran, with al the unrest,e tc going on there. He is willing to claim the "moral high ground", and gripe about the bad government while not doing anything about it. That way he constantly is seen as "looking out for the little Moslem" without being stuck with actually DOING anything for them. He get s all the power without the responsibility. And his control of Shia Islam will be a big struggle for him and the Iraqis, much too big for him to divert too much into domestic politics except by proxy. So your worries about an Iranian-style Islamic Republic are far overblown. As is your self-destructive vengance towrd Al Sadr. Back off and really read the things I said. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-05 10:06:20 PM |
| #13 Mrs Davis - a bit of math correction. 7,000,000 males, 20% are Sunni. This is their potential pool, 1.4 million. 200,000 PEOPLE are sympathizers, of which at most 1/2 are male. Thats 100,000 Males, of which there are 40% that are of the prime target demographic. Thats 80,000 in their recruiting pool. In general, any time you tap more than 1/8 (15%) of your pool, you've broken sustainability (c.f. France 1917, Germany 1944). So their sustainable level is 10,000. And that assumes they have a society of 200,000 actively supporting them with weaponry, finances, logistics, and training. As that 200,000 shrinks from demographic exhaustion (I.e. its not a self sustaining demographic - its not growing at all, and as peopel get tired of it, they are dropping off the supporters), so will the mazx sustainable pool. Now with a maximum sustainable size of 10,000, they are at double to triple that in size. This means they will not be able to replce losses, and that finance, training and weaponry will be in sever short supply once they work through thier pre-war reserves and caches. Add to that the US/MNF emphasis on finding and eliminating caches, leadership and suppliers - and you have a system approaching a catastrophic failure point, much like the French Army in WW-1. And they will collapse for the same reasons the French did, unliek the Germans in WW2. The quality of officers and NCOs available is dismal for the criminals elements. Former street thugs and terrorists do not make good field commanders in terms of strategy and sustaining a large rebeliion. It takes military men with solid generalship skills - like Giap in Vietnam, or Von Manstien in Germany. The math is not on thier side - and its only a matter of keepin g the pressure on untilthe tipping point is reached, and being smart enough to seeing that tipping point and going all-out on the offensive with everything we (MNF and Iraq) have at that point in time. For an example of the collapse, see Afghnistan and the Taliban. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-05 9:40:36 PM |
| #12 Here's the problem for the bad guys: the Salafists and Baathists who are driving this are going to lose out when the elections go forward. The Sunni who participate will be greatly rewarded, and those opposed will be seen for what they are, Baathist thugs and Tawhid extremists, bascially criminal elements. The continued turnout of Iraqis of all stripes for the Armed Forces and police, in the face of murderous terrorism, is a strong indicator that the bad guys will lose. The enrichment and economic recovery of the pacified areas (a vast maority of the country) are already becoming the envy of the Sunni - they see their negihbors gettingjbos, starting and running businesses, and being able to live a normal life, while they are dominated by Saudi Salafists, Syrian thugs, and their own worst criminal elements. Support ius already waning, given that the criminal elements there have targeted and killed far more Muslims, destroyed far more of thier own property and caused far more misery of thier own peopel then they have done to Americans. This big vulture is coming to rest, and if the US can finally seal off Syria and the bandits they are supporting, and pressure Iran (internal distractions there are quite nice at keeping the Black Turban gang there busy) in order to secure the borders - the insurgency will choke off and die - there is not enough local support to sustain it at these levels. Add to that, there are undoubtedly more Fallujah/Najaf type pacification operations set to go in places in the Sunni Triangle - and there are already inroads being made in the Hafia street area of Baghdad (Sadr City). And the best news of all is the Sadr himself is running a whole pile of candidates and doing a "get out the vote" routine - he's finally figured out he can get more by massing all those poor voters in his area than he can by fighting US troops and dying in droves. Like him or not, his guys will have a serious part in the future government of Iraq (meaning look for money and govt programs to be tossed into Sadr City - where he can control disbursement, like his father did). Its not all as bad as the press would have you believe. This info is out ther in the public, but the US press simply doesnt report much of it because it doesnt fit their agenda (they are still trying to make this into Vietnam). |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-05 9:28:31 PM |
| #11 I agree with Spook. The insurgents are increasingly being squeezed as we approach the January 30 elections. What is occurring is that the so-called 200,000 supporters are a heterogeneous lot who are confronting a fundamental decision: support the past or look ahead to their future. Those who don't vote have no voice and no future. This squeeze is not lost on the insurgents themselves. The proliferation of bombings targets the real and growing threat to insurgents: the Iraqi National Guard and police. Yet more recruits are going into training and there are far more of them than their are foreign fighters and insurgents. The US is getting better at building the Iraqi forces, with Iraqi command-and-control and embedded US advisors. The clock is running out on the insurgency. I suspect some SF actions are planned for Saddam leadership in Syria. Finally, Spook is right too about the disregard Iraqi Shia have for Iranian (Perisan) Shia. The future Iraqi Shia, once in power, will pose a bad alternative for the theocracy in Iran. For decades the Iranian Shia have tried to annex southern Iraq, now the door is swinging in the other direction. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-01-05 10:42:36 PM |
| #10 good take, OS |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-05 10:33:41 PM |
| #9 OS. Great post as usual. Certainly a key indicator is that guys are still lining up to join the Iraqi military and police. Also, I think that after the election, the realization that the insurgents are essentially destroying Iraq's wealth by attacking pipelines, government buildings, etc will be more widespread once it's crystal clear that oil revenues are no longer going to a kleptocracy. |
| Posted by: JAB 2005-01-05 10:25:05 PM |
| #8 That last should read "Back Up" - not Back Off. No hostility implied. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-05 10:24:02 PM |
| #7 Joe - you missed the point. I was pointing out tha math was NOT in the Sunni's side. The math does not favor the insurrection - that way my whole point. The Sunnis and Tawhidists (Al Zarqawi) are going to lose. That's what I pointed out and you seem to ahve completely missed. You also have a flawed understanding of the culture there. As for "Tater" (as we call him here), if he has truly chosen to "go legit", then he will be as shackled to the process as he could be - making him less and less of a threat for violence. As for jailing him or killing him, that would have made him a martyr, and we'd be talking about 80% of the population as a base for the rebellion. Your emoitional response is understandable - its mine too, but its dead wrong. Reality says a "political" Sadr is better than a dead one, at this point in time. The time to take Sadr out is long past (should have been after he killed the cleric whose place he has usurped). All your wishing will not change the circumstances. As a wise ofl First Sgt one told me: Wish in 1 hand and sh*t in the other, see which fills up first. And the Iraqis will NEVER defer to the Persians - they hate them - many there still remember the lives lost in the war against Iran,a nd they blame the Iranians, not Saddam. Sistani knows this aversion to Iranians/persians - and is looking forward to moving the center of Shia muslim activity to Iraq - under the supervision of Iraqi Shia, who control the top religious shrines and schools - thats a ton of money and world-wide power, not local power limited to Iraqs borders. Sistani knows the pitfalls inherent in trying to govern - he has a prime example of how not to do tings over in Iran, with al the unrest,e tc going on there. He is willing to claim the "moral high ground", and gripe about the bad government while not doing anything about it. That way he constantly is seen as "looking out for the little Moslem" without being stuck with actually DOING anything for them. He get s all the power without the responsibility. And his control of Shia Islam will be a big struggle for him and the Iraqis, much too big for him to divert too much into domestic politics except by proxy. So your worries about an Iranian-style Islamic Republic are far overblown. As is your self-destructive vengance towrd Al Sadr. Back off and really read the things I said. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-05 10:06:20 PM |
| #6 After the election we may see an Afghanistan like operation. The Kurds and Shia’s in the army will use the assistance of Special Forces to call in air strikes as needed while the Sunni areas are depopulated. At some point political leadership in the Sunni area will seek to join the government. I would not want to be a young Sunni male in 2005. |
| Posted by: Canaveral Dan 2005-01-05 9:59:18 PM |
| #5 The math is not on thier side - and its only a matter of keepin g the pressure on untilthe tipping point is reached, and being smart enough to seeing that tipping point and going all-out on the offensive with everything we (MNF and Iraq) have at that point in time. For an example of the collapse, see Afghnistan and the Taliban. You should have stopped while you were ahead, OS, math is not on the Sunnis side. Once the Shiites take control of government, and provided we don't meddle with our goody two shoes Geneva Convention/tolerance pap...the Shiites will set the Sunnis straight on what's what and who's who in short order. The million dollar question is whether or not the Shiite dominated Iraqi government will end up being pro-US after they don't need our heavy lifting troops and our financial aid in a few years? Or will the religious thingey cause them to tilt to their Shiite religious persian cousins? That's what's in doubt. As for news about Sadr...err is that supposed to make us feel happy? That slimeball caused the death of US troops in Najef. He should be under arrest and facing the death penalty and instead he's running for politicall office. That's not so wonderful, IMO, but maybe it's all in the eyes of the beholder. |
| Posted by: joeblow 2005-01-05 9:51:56 PM |
| #4 Mrs Davis - a bit of math correction. 7,000,000 males, 20% are Sunni. This is their potential pool, 1.4 million. 200,000 PEOPLE are sympathizers, of which at most 1/2 are male. Thats 100,000 Males, of which there are 40% that are of the prime target demographic. Thats 80,000 in their recruiting pool. In general, any time you tap more than 1/8 (15%) of your pool, you've broken sustainability (c.f. France 1917, Germany 1944). So their sustainable level is 10,000. And that assumes they have a society of 200,000 actively supporting them with weaponry, finances, logistics, and training. As that 200,000 shrinks from demographic exhaustion (I.e. its not a self sustaining demographic - its not growing at all, and as peopel get tired of it, they are dropping off the supporters), so will the mazx sustainable pool. Now with a maximum sustainable size of 10,000, they are at double to triple that in size. This means they will not be able to replce losses, and that finance, training and weaponry will be in sever short supply once they work through thier pre-war reserves and caches. Add to that the US/MNF emphasis on finding and eliminating caches, leadership and suppliers - and you have a system approaching a catastrophic failure point, much like the French Army in WW-1. And they will collapse for the same reasons the French did, unliek the Germans in WW2. The quality of officers and NCOs available is dismal for the criminals elements. Former street thugs and terrorists do not make good field commanders in terms of strategy and sustaining a large rebeliion. It takes military men with solid generalship skills - like Giap in Vietnam, or Von Manstien in Germany. The math is not on thier side - and its only a matter of keepin g the pressure on untilthe tipping point is reached, and being smart enough to seeing that tipping point and going all-out on the offensive with everything we (MNF and Iraq) have at that point in time. For an example of the collapse, see Afghnistan and the Taliban. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-05 9:40:36 PM |
| #3 Here's the problem for the bad guys: the Salafists and Baathists who are driving this are going to lose out when the elections go forward. The Sunni who participate will be greatly rewarded, and those opposed will be seen for what they are, Baathist thugs and Tawhid extremists, bascially criminal elements. The continued turnout of Iraqis of all stripes for the Armed Forces and police, in the face of murderous terrorism, is a strong indicator that the bad guys will lose. The enrichment and economic recovery of the pacified areas (a vast maority of the country) are already becoming the envy of the Sunni - they see their negihbors gettingjbos, starting and running businesses, and being able to live a normal life, while they are dominated by Saudi Salafists, Syrian thugs, and their own worst criminal elements. Support ius already waning, given that the criminal elements there have targeted and killed far more Muslims, destroyed far more of thier own property and caused far more misery of thier own peopel then they have done to Americans. This big vulture is coming to rest, and if the US can finally seal off Syria and the bandits they are supporting, and pressure Iran (internal distractions there are quite nice at keeping the Black Turban gang there busy) in order to secure the borders - the insurgency will choke off and die - there is not enough local support to sustain it at these levels. Add to that, there are undoubtedly more Fallujah/Najaf type pacification operations set to go in places in the Sunni Triangle - and there are already inroads being made in the Hafia street area of Baghdad (Sadr City). And the best news of all is the Sadr himself is running a whole pile of candidates and doing a "get out the vote" routine - he's finally figured out he can get more by massing all those poor voters in his area than he can by fighting US troops and dying in droves. Like him or not, his guys will have a serious part in the future government of Iraq (meaning look for money and govt programs to be tossed into Sadr City - where he can control disbursement, like his father did). Its not all as bad as the press would have you believe. This info is out ther in the public, but the US press simply doesnt report much of it because it doesnt fit their agenda (they are still trying to make this into Vietnam). |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-05 9:28:31 PM |
| #2 Sounds like a MOAB solution to me. Send them to Allan in shoebox. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2005-01-05 9:15:13 PM |
| #1 So we've got 250,000 people sympathetic/actively involved in the terrorism. 7,000,000 males 14-65 years of age in Iraq. 20% Sunni makes 1.4 million potential terrorists. So roughly 1 or more out of 6 adult males in the Sunni triangle is involved in the violence. I doubt it will end in a year. If I had this guy's job, I sure wouldn't be planning on it. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-01-05 8:55:23 PM |