The Surge and the Defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq
In his latest message sent out as an audio statement through al Jazeera, Osama bin Laden essentially recognized the fact that al Qaeda in Iraq is no longer a functional force. Al Qaeda is regrouping its resources, largely outside of Iraq and looking for new ways to exert their influence. They managed to prove that terrorists don't belong in an actual ground war, and by crumbling they have certainly make it seem as if President Bush's 'surge' in Iraq has worked.
In fact, the defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq is not so much the result of the additional troops sent there, as it is the result of changes in strategy implemented by General David Petraeus who has been able to win over frustrated Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province and elsewhere and shown them that their best interests lay with turning on al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had already been dealt serious blows by heightened urban security from Iraqi and coalition forces and had been driven out of the cities to try to take their campaign of terror to the rural towns. This infringed on the territory of the Sheikhs, causing them to unify against al Qaeda and work with the Americans and the Iraqi government with the result that al Qaeda forces had nowhere left to go and no one left supporting them and they were crushed in a series of small raids and battles over the last few months.
This does not mean we should count al Qaeda out, but they are now viewed in Iraq as the interlopers and foreign invaders which they are and will no longer find a sympathetic and supporting population there. Average Iraqis have grown very tired of terrorist gangs telling them how to dress and act in public, and even telling them where they can and cannot live based on their religious beliefs. What remains to be seen is whether Petraeus and his allies in Iraq can achieve the same sort of results in Basra and other strongholds of Iranian backed Shiite militias.
The best news out of Iraq is that these successes have led to a massive reduction in violence. People are now walking the streets in Baghdad neighborhoods which used to be danger zones, they are traveling through a city no longer choked by check-points, and areas like the Anbar province which used to be in open warfare have become remarkably safe and peaceful. Overall violent incidents are down 70% since June. Car bombings are down 67%. Roadside bombings are down 40%. Violence is down so much that one article reports complaints from workers at a major Shiite cemetery that burials are down below pre-war levels, which means less revenue and fewer jobs for cemetery workers.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Lumpy
What the hell is wrong with the demcrats. Why would they put thousands even hundreds of thousands of lives at risk just to score political points on Bush or advance their presidential campaign? If Turkey invades they ought to be dragged off in chains and tried for war crimes, but in Iraq not the UN so they can face the death penalty.
2 - REMF
Nope, wait your turn Lumpy; the war crimes in Iraq committed by GW Bush, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz need to be tried first.
3 - Lumpy
Do you even understand the difference between killing innocents for trivial reasons and a just war of liberation? I'd like to see u in an Iraqi court as an al Qaeda fifth columist.
4 - Dave Nalle
If Turkey does invade I think it's a bit much to put all the blame on the democrats, or even on MCH. Turkey itself is the problem here. Their demand that the political autonomy of the Kurds be suppressed is entirely unreasonable and ought to be treated that way.
Dave
5 - REMF
"...and a just war of liberation?"
- Lumpy
"Just" as long as someone ELSE has to die fighting it...
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
What an arrogant bunch of American navel-gazers!
Events between Turkey and Kurdistan have nothing to do with the congressmaggots on the Potomac and their stupid resolutions, they have to do with the fact that the Turks do not want to recognize that about a third of their own country is Kurdish because that would fracture their own nation on ethnic lines. While the news government there is a bunch of Islamist hard-liners who want to undo much of Attatürk's revolution in Turkey, they are taking one element of Kemalism that the Turkish army appreciates, the repression of Kurds, as part of basic policy. And this basic policy is what Dave Nalle refers to in his article.
7 - Dave Nalle
That's pretty much what I pointed out in my last comment, Ruvy. Plus the new regime in addition to being islamic fundamentalists are also ultra-nationalists, hence their enhanced dislike of the Kurds.
But what the US does as far as policy in Iraq IS relevant, because if we do establish an independent Kurdistan we will see the invasion the Turks have promised for generations. If an independent Kurdistan is to happen - and it wouldn't be a bad thing - we need to straighten the Turks out once and for all, and that probably means some pretty heavy threats with the will to back them up.
BTW, this article is dedicated to Bliffle, who requested something like it, being tired of articles bout Hugo Chavez.
Dave
8 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
"But what the US does as far as policy in Iraq IS relevant, because if we do establish an independent Kurdistan we will see the invasion the Turks have promised for generations. If an independent Kurdistan is to happen - and it wouldn't be a bad thing - we need to straighten the Turks out once and for all, and that probably means some pretty heavy threats with the will to back them up."
Go and check your history and read up on what the Turks did in Korea fighting with the Americans under the UN flag.
The Turks are bad-asses. They're meaner than all hell, and have seen the weaknesses of Americans - who do not know how to improvise in the absence of needed equipment as well as they or the Israelis do.
Three thousand American body-bags will be a small count in a fight with Turks, Dave.
9 - Dave Nalle
I know, Ruvy. But if we fought like it was a REAL war we'd still win - if we're even capable of doing that anymore. But because we're probably not up to defending the Kurds as we should, we need to find a way to solve this situation without resorting to violence.
Dave
10 - RJ
Events between Turkey and Kurdistan have nothing to do with the congressmaggots on the Potomac and their stupid resolutions
Sigh. Here and here.
they have to do with the fact that the Turks do not want to recognize that about a third of their own country is Kurdish
Wrong. More like 10-20%, or maybe 25% at the very most.
11 - brian
what wrong with the democrats? They are serving their real masters: those with money: such as AIPAC. They are the ones who want war in the middle east. And they are the ones demonising arabs and muslims the better to get americans to die for Eretz Israel.
12 - RJ
"If an independent Kurdistan is to happen - and it wouldn't be a bad thing - we need to straighten the Turks out once and for all, and that probably means some pretty heavy threats with the will to back them up."
That's not going to happen. Turkey is NATO, and they have a serious military (at least for a Muslim, Middle Eastern country). No way in hell the US starts threatening military action against an ally, especially an ally with some important leverage in the region, and the military might to back it up.
I mean, seriously. The day Bush starts talking about invading/going to war with Turkey, is the day I become an anti-war protester. IOW, it ain't gonna happen.
13 - brian
A curious admission...for those following 9-11 Truth, and how those who question the official theory get called 'conspiracy theorists', well the following admission appeared recently:
'REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, I, as did other members of the committee, apologized on behalf of the American people for the disgusting treatment to which our government, I believe, knowingly subjected him. ...
I believe that what happened here was that the United States government consciously and deliberately conspired with the government of Syria to have him tortured. http://www.democracynow.org/print.pl?sid=07/10/24/1528217
14 - brian
'I mean, seriously. The day Bush starts talking about invading/going to war with Turkey, is the day I become an anti-war protester. IOW, it ain't gonna happen.'
so you are hard core pro-war???
15 - RJ
Here's what's going to happen:
Turkish forces will cross the border into a Iraq a few times. They will use artillery to shell PKK positions. They will use their air power to attack PKK camps/bases. This "offensive" won't accomplish the stated goal of "destroying" the PKK, but it will be an effective show of force, one intended to both placate their own citizens, while intimidating the Iraqi and American governments. And it will work.
The US and Iraq will agree to crush the PKK as long as Turkey agrees to stop their military action. There will be some sort of unannounced agreement on this (although it will be leaked to the press), and it will be done. The PKK will be largely rooted out by American and Iraqi forces. The Kurds will be upset by these events, but probably not in a major way. End of story.
The Turkish populace will be mollified, a serious NATO-splitting crisis will have been averted, and no one will be talking about any of this by December.
That's how this shit works in realpolitik. Watch and see.
16 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
RJ,
The bottom line with all of this is not the precise number of Kurds, but the fact that the Turks have been repressing their culture for as long as Attatürk's republic has been in existence, if not longer. The Turks are desperate not to have division in Anatolia, which is the where 90% of the Turkish republic is located. While I can understand this attitude, when the Turks start extending their "sovereignty" to northern Mesopotamia, it gets my hackles up. Remember, RJ, this is my neighborhood I'm talking about, not some faraway place on the corner of the world map.
Nevertheless, what you write in comment #15 has a ring of realism to it, and is a very viable scenario.....
Maybe.....
17 - Dave Nalle
RJ is probably spot on, but with the new regime in Turkey I think we're a lot closer to an unreasonable response to the situation than we ever have been before.
Oh, and contrary to what Brian says, the US has considered the PKK a terrorist organization since the 1970s and has not, in fact, worked with them.
Brian supports the PKK because like Hezbollah and other terrorist and genocidal groups he believes in they are marxist-lenninists.
Dave
18 - bliffle
"#9 â€" October 25, 2007 @ 04:09AM â€" Dave Nalle [URL]
I know, Ruvy. But if we fought like it was a REAL war we'd still win - ..."
Here comes Better-Things-to-Do Dave to complain about the lousy job of fighting our soldiers have done in Iraq. Same thing the war advocates did in the Vietnam aftermath. Couldn't admit their war theory was wrong and blamed it on the PFCs.
Support the troops, Dave.
When are you going to enlist and show them how to fight a REAL war?
19 - troll
Dave - the power of your ability to manifest is astounding...why just a few weeks ago you began giving your international socialist conspiracy a face in the term 'tranzi' and behold they start coming out of the woodwork - !
brian - you see capitalists under your bed and condemn them...this make Dave's question legitimate: where do you get the money to be a tourist of the world - ?
20 - Dave Nalle
You know, Bliffle. I expected better from you than a cheap shot like #18. Guess I was being too kind.
Point out where I said one negative word about the troops or attempted to blame anything on the PFCs. Maybe you shouldn't leap to conclusions or perhaps you're just projecting your own prejudices onto me.
Obviously, my statement condemned the entire nation and in particular our leadership and was not directed at the troops. That you could take it that way is blatantly deceptive and insulting.
I wrote on this topic for you. See if I ever take your requests into consideration again.
Dave
21 - troll
so here's the thing - by allowing aqi to melt away as arabs are wont to do we've lost another one
what good is Iraq if it is 'demagnefied'
22 - Dave Nalle
troll, i think you had a very good point on brian - since you were agreeing with me - and I do think he's living proof that I'm not paranoid. But what the hell was that last post about?
Dave
23 - troll
(just a little joke Dave)
24 - Dave Nalle
On thinking about it a bit more I believe I get it, troll. I just didn't expect that bit of clarity of vision coming from you. For some strange reason I often confuse you with bliffle in my head [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor].
Dave
25 - troll
(...probably would have been clearer if I hadn't gone for the combination of 'magnetized' and 'magnified' - it was a reach)