| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Signs that the terrorists are losing in Iraq |
| 2007-10-08 |
| Omar Fadhil, Wall Street Journal BAGHDAD--The latest chapter in al Qaeda's war manual in their war against the Iraqi people and the Coalition is this: raiding remote peaceful villages, burning down homes and slaughtering both man and beast. It's a campaign of self destruction. For about a year al Qaeda has been trying to build a so called Islamic State in Iraq. On several occasions al Qaeda has even declared parts of Baghdad or other places in other provinces the capital of this Islamic State. But now that they are losing one base after another, their objective seems to have changed from adding more towns and villages to the "state" to destroying the very same towns and villages. Obviously, it's all about making headlines regardless of the means to do that. This change in plans began to take shape with the battle between al Qaeda and the joint forces on Sept. 6 and 7 in Hor Rijab and then the massacre that followed in the same spot a week later and finally the attacks on other villages north, south and east of Baghdad in the last week or so. Actually first I'd like to recommend reading a good post by Jules Crittenden about the flawed timing of this "Little Tet. Anyway, our interest today is more about the field situation and strategy than about timing since the latter seems to be not so friendly to al Qaeda. Well, actually timing is very important here too but at a rather different level. In my opinion al Qaeda found itself forced to start this villages war. It wasn't a choice as much as a last resort because villages are among the few fighting spaces that al Qaeda can still utilize as large cities become increasingly difficult for them to operate in. They know that without engaging the enemy--that's us by the way--their existence and influence would end and I'm almost positive that they feel bitter about having to fight this way. . . . Mr. Fadhil and his brother Mohammed write a blog, Iraq the Model, from Baghdad. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #16 As for IRAQ, this article is saying that the Radical Islamists-Insurgents are not only losing the war for "Hearts and Minds", but now are engaging in "scorched earth" actions??? I STILL ARGUE THAT ITS PREMATURE TO LABEL AQ + THE SPETZIES AS DEFEATED. AS I'D WARNED/SAID LONG AGO, NO MATTER WHERE THE USA + AQ/SPETZIES FIGHT EACH OTHER, THE END-GAME FOR OSAMA WILL BE IN IRAN, BECUZ OF THE 12th IMAM/HIDDEN MAHDI MYTHOLOGIES OSAMA = AQ ADHERES TO. Osama > A US-IRAN Conflict will be the Islamist equivalent of GETTYSBURG or THE BULGE, etc. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-10-08 23:26 |
| #15 GREEN BERETS movie > ALDO RAY [paraphrased] > "The school that I attended taught me that it took eleven years since July 4, 1776 for the founders of a new Nation to come up wid a document of Nationhood that everyone could agree with - our present Constitution". |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-10-08 23:17 |
| #14 Agreed. To this day I remain totally stunned at the degree of foresight and vision displayed by America's founding fathers. That they were able to assemble such an enduring and superbly functional document as our Constitution is nothing short of a miracle. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-10-08 18:18 |
| #13 Zen, The founders of this country had more testicular fortitude than the total possessed by 100 times the population today (military excepted - and they have taken an oath not to overthrow the government - and I believe them.) And there's no France of any significance to ally with whatever minor group might want to give revolution a try today. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-10-08 18:11 |
| #12 As a nation, I don't see any intent to win anything else right now. Painful though it will prove to be, I personally don't believe it would be wise to overtly escalate in Iran, Pakistan, or KSA right now You are absolutely right, Glenmore. However, this lack of political will in no way changes the dire need to choke off terrorism's support base. We probably cannot survive another generation of destroying our military, but horrible as the thought is, we can survive even a one-off nuclear attack. I believe it is this sort of totally repusive political calculus that is being used by our State Department. They are traitors for it. Once again, I'll close with the words of Srdja Trifkovic: The elite class has every intention of continuing to “fight” the war on terrorism without naming the enemy, without revealing his beliefs, without unmasking his intentions, without offending his accomplices, without expelling his fifth columnists, and without ever daring to win. Their crime can and must be stopped. The founders of the United States overthrew the colonial government for offenses far lighter than those of which the traitor class is guilty. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-10-08 17:49 |
| #11 You have to choose your battles, Zen. Don't enter a fight unless you can - and intend to - win. As a nation, I don't see any intent to win anything else right now. Painful though it will prove to be, I personally don't believe it would be wise to overtly escalate in Iran, Pakistan, or KSA right now (we shall not discuss covert). Vietnam was a pointless waste of good people after we (the people) decided we could not win (or at least not at a price we were willing to pay) - that would have been around 1968 by my reckoning. Too many people in the US and around the world want the US to endure another Vietnam - better to store our powder safely and wait/work for public support before giving them what they want. We probably cannot survive another generation of destroying our military, but horrible as the thought is, we can survive even a one-off nuclear attack. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-10-08 16:29 |
| #10 One group of terrorists may be losing, but there are plenty of others who are not. Word, Glenmore. We really need to begin working on crippling the supply-chain and not just engaging wherever it happens to surface. Iran, Pakistan and then Saudi Arabia. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-10-08 14:36 |
| #9 Missed by that much... |
| Posted by: Thomas Woof 2007-10-08 14:26 |
| #8 Is this the same babe in the polka dot swimsuit Life cover that caused something of a furor back in '44 or so? |
| Posted by: Thomas Woof 2007-10-08 14:25 |
| #7 grrr----- Liberty, I mean. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2007-10-08 13:31 |
| #6 Too true Procopius2k. So called "polls" can create any result the pollster intends. Besides, even if they were accurate, I thank God I don't live in a democracy, but in a representative Republic. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for lunch. Libert is a well-armed lamb disputing the vote." --- Ben Franklin |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2007-10-08 13:30 |
| #5 Sad that so many buy into 'polls'. That's a late 20th century creation of the MSM to make up news on the cheap. So according to the 'polls' both President Gore and Kerry won [well, at one self center Kennedy serving in Congress believes it should be because that's what the polls said]. Again, the 'polls' contrive their questions and don't try to gather real data. How many were 'feed up' with Iraq because they opposed the war and how many were 'feed up' because they perceived that it was being conducted badly, not because they want to lose? You'll never get that out of them. It's rigged. Otherwise, there'd be no news. It's all about drama, conflict, flash and bang. It's about entertainment, not facts. Polls aren't facts, though they're treated as such. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-10-08 11:27 |
| #4 prop Sadly according to every poll that I've seen, the Dems are winning politically because of the length of the Iraq conflict. We may achieve a very low fatality rate this month and next month and kill lots of Al Q people and even bring most of the Shia terrorist factions under control but because of the length of the conflict, the cost in lives and money and the long deployments, the bulk of the voters will still see this as a bad thing. |
| Posted by: mhw 2007-10-08 11:12 |
| #3 Signs that the terrorists are losing in Iraq or Signs that the Democrats are losing in Iraq Back in the old days of schooling, I was taught that: If a=b and b=c then it followed that a=c Now, where does that lead me to? But, don't question their patriotism, cause it could mean "a couple more Senate seats". |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-10-08 10:17 |
| #2 very similar to Iraq the Model blog entry for Sept 23. |
| Posted by: mhw 2007-10-08 08:38 |
| #1 Don't get euphoric. One group of terrorists may be losing, but there are plenty of others who are not. I don't know if we will even fight them again in this war, but they will fight us again sometime. I am referring to the Iranian-backed forces. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-10-08 07:09 |