Full Version: Papers show 'gloomy' state of insurgency
QUOTE(Associated Press via Yahoo)
A blueprint for trying to start a war between the United States and
Iran was among a "huge treasure" of documents found in the hideout of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Iraqi officials said Thursday. The document, purporting to reflect al-Qaida policy and its cooperation with groups loyal to ousted President Saddam Hussein, also appear to show that the insurgency in Iraq was weakening.
......
While the coalition was continuing to suffer human losses, "time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance," the document said.
......
The document said the insurgency was being hurt by, among other things, the U.S. military's program to train Iraqi security forces, by massive arrests and seizures of weapons, by tightening the militants' financial outlets, and by creating divisions within its ranks.
"Generally speaking and despite the gloomy present situation, we find that the best solution in order to get out of this crisis is to involve the U.S. forces in waging a war against another country or any hostile groups," the document said, as quoted by al-Maliki's office.
According to the summary, insurgents were being weakened by operations against them and by their failure to attract recruits. To give new impetus to the insurgency, they would have to change tactics, it added.
Papers show 'gloomy' state of Iraqi insurgency.
There is more detailing the tactics of the insurgency in the article.
1. Do you believe the insurgency to be weakening?
2. If so - do you believe the tactics discussed in the article that the Iraqi insurgency wishes to use will succeed?
3. Do you believe the United States and it's Iraqi allies (along with the Coalition allies) will prevail given the current state of the insurgency in comparison to the sentiment on the homefront?
--fixed link error caused by forum bug...Mike
1. Do you believe the insurgency to be weakening?
Little doubt about that. Out gunned, manned and with desertions in the ranks and a lack of “new blood’ (literally) they are doomed to failure as long as we keep the pressure on and the Iraqi military and police step up as expected
2. If so - do you believe the tactics discussed in the article that the Iraqi insurgency wishes to use will succeed?
No. We will not be drawn into a war with Iran and their attempts to stir sectarian violence IMO will not succeed in the long run.
3. Do you believe the United States and it's Iraqi allies (along with the Coalition allies) will prevail given the current state of the insurgency in comparison to the sentiment on the homefront?
As long as we continue aggressively with training the Iraqis and at the same time killing the insurgents we will not lose. We have superior technology and it improves daily. We will defeat the IED threat and we will, with the help of the Iraqi people, root out the terrorists. Many IMO will just give up and fade back into the population
Little doubt about that. Out gunned, manned and with desertions in the ranks and a lack of “new blood’ (literally) they are doomed to failure as long as we keep the pressure on and the Iraqi military and police step up as expected
2. If so - do you believe the tactics discussed in the article that the Iraqi insurgency wishes to use will succeed?
No. We will not be drawn into a war with Iran and their attempts to stir sectarian violence IMO will not succeed in the long run.
3. Do you believe the United States and it's Iraqi allies (along with the Coalition allies) will prevail given the current state of the insurgency in comparison to the sentiment on the homefront?
As long as we continue aggressively with training the Iraqis and at the same time killing the insurgents we will not lose. We have superior technology and it improves daily. We will defeat the IED threat and we will, with the help of the Iraqi people, root out the terrorists. Many IMO will just give up and fade back into the population
jleavy, your link didn't work for me. It's probably a bug in the new forum software, since your markup looked fine in the edit window when I hit the "reply" button. I suspect the software is trying to break up long strings to avoid horizontal scrolling, so I trimmed some of the Yahoo junk off the end. Hopefully this link will work better. The full text of the document is also available.
1. Do you believe the insurgency to be weakening?
I wouldn't have said so a couple of weeks ago, but this document seems like good news.
2. If so - do you believe the tactics discussed in the article that the Iraqi insurgency wishes to use will succeed?
Assuming this document is genuine, the subterfuges it recommends are going to be less effective now that we know the plan. The plan is similar to Zarqawi's last plan: "Let's you and him fight." Get America to fight the Shia, or the Shia to fight Alawi and Chalabi, or Chalabi to fight Alawi, or maybe the Shia could fight the Kurds. But the "best of these wars to be ignited is the one between the Americans and Iran, because it will have many benefits in favor of the Sunni and the resistance."
A few of the specific tactics recommended to convince the west of Iranian danger:
Interesting. Everybody knows Iran is working on nuclear weapons, so the first part of item 3 won't be difficult. I think Iran will refrain from "threatening the west with these" until it has enough of a stockpile to be a credible deterrent. As for items 4 and 5, there was that "exploding operation" in Buenos Aires in 1994...
3. Do you believe the United States and it's Iraqi allies (along with the Coalition allies) will prevail given the current state of the insurgency in comparison to the sentiment on the homefront?
I want to believe. I think Zarqawi's organization is doomed. But he's spent the last two years trying like hell to start a civil war between Iraq's Sunni and Shia populations, and that may yet be his legacy. There are signs the momentum is going our way, though:
1. Do you believe the insurgency to be weakening?
I wouldn't have said so a couple of weeks ago, but this document seems like good news.
2. If so - do you believe the tactics discussed in the article that the Iraqi insurgency wishes to use will succeed?
Assuming this document is genuine, the subterfuges it recommends are going to be less effective now that we know the plan. The plan is similar to Zarqawi's last plan: "Let's you and him fight." Get America to fight the Shia, or the Shia to fight Alawi and Chalabi, or Chalabi to fight Alawi, or maybe the Shia could fight the Kurds. But the "best of these wars to be ignited is the one between the Americans and Iran, because it will have many benefits in favor of the Sunni and the resistance."
QUOTE
The question remains, how to draw the Americans into fighting a war against Iran? It is not known whether American is serious in its animosity towards Iraq, [sic] because of the big support Iran is offering to America in its war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Hence, it is necessary first to exaggerate the Iranian danger and to convince America and the west in general, of the real danger coming from Iran
A few of the specific tactics recommended to convince the west of Iranian danger:
QUOTE
3. By advertising that Iran has chemical and nuclear weapons and is threatening the west with these weapons.
4. By executing exploding operations in the west and accusing Iran by planting Iranian Shi'a fingerprints and evidence.
5. By declaring the existence of a relationship between Iran and terrorist groups (as termed by the Americans).
4. By executing exploding operations in the west and accusing Iran by planting Iranian Shi'a fingerprints and evidence.
5. By declaring the existence of a relationship between Iran and terrorist groups (as termed by the Americans).
Interesting. Everybody knows Iran is working on nuclear weapons, so the first part of item 3 won't be difficult. I think Iran will refrain from "threatening the west with these" until it has enough of a stockpile to be a credible deterrent. As for items 4 and 5, there was that "exploding operation" in Buenos Aires in 1994...
3. Do you believe the United States and it's Iraqi allies (along with the Coalition allies) will prevail given the current state of the insurgency in comparison to the sentiment on the homefront?
I want to believe. I think Zarqawi's organization is doomed. But he's spent the last two years trying like hell to start a civil war between Iraq's Sunni and Shia populations, and that may yet be his legacy. There are signs the momentum is going our way, though:
QUOTE
American and Iraqi forces have carried out 452 raids since the June 7 airstrike on al-Zarqawi, and 104 insurgents were killed in those actions, said U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell.
The nationwide raids led to the discovery of 28 significant arms caches, Caldwell said.
He said 255 of the raids were joint operations, while 143 were carried out by Iraqi forces alone. The raids also resulted in the captures of 759 "anti-Iraqi elements."
The nationwide raids led to the discovery of 28 significant arms caches, Caldwell said.
He said 255 of the raids were joint operations, while 143 were carried out by Iraqi forces alone. The raids also resulted in the captures of 759 "anti-Iraqi elements."
1. Do you believe the insurgency to be weakening?
No. The foreign jihadists make up only one aspect of the insurgency. It is too early to tell if the increased representation given to Sunni Arabs in the current government will result in reduced support for the indigenous factions. I don't believe it will. At least, not until the sectarian militias are brought under control. Until this happens, security and stability will remain unattainable.
2. If so - do you believe the tactics discussed in the article that the Iraqi insurgency wishes to use will succeed?
Again, the "tactics" referred to are those of but one faction within a diverse range of armed militant organizations. But, to keep it simple, all the bad guys need to succeed is for us to fail to defeat them. They do not need to "win" anything. As long as they are able to keep mounting attacks indefinitely - upon US & Coalition forces as well as upon Iraqi security forces and civilians, it becomes more likely that domestic US political pressure will force an eventual pullout. That is the ultimate reason why there is such a significant focus on standing up effective Iraqi military and law enforcement capability.
CSIS, dated 15 June: Iraqi Force Development in 2006
3. Do you believe the United States and it's Iraqi allies (along with the Coalition allies) will prevail given the current state of the insurgency in comparison to the sentiment on the homefront?
I hope so. But this is getting tougher for me. I have a deep emotional desire to see it succeed; I've been involved closely with Iraq since '90 - and have spent years on the ground from Desert Storm to Provide Comfort to UNSCOM to OIF. I've lost good friends in this effort. But its hard to remain positive in light of both the current situation in-country and the domestic political pressures that are active here at home.
I recommend taking a read of this 12 June cable from the Embassy indicative of worsening trends in Baghdad:
Snapshots from the Office: Public Affairs Staff Show Signs of Social Discord
No. The foreign jihadists make up only one aspect of the insurgency. It is too early to tell if the increased representation given to Sunni Arabs in the current government will result in reduced support for the indigenous factions. I don't believe it will. At least, not until the sectarian militias are brought under control. Until this happens, security and stability will remain unattainable.
2. If so - do you believe the tactics discussed in the article that the Iraqi insurgency wishes to use will succeed?
Again, the "tactics" referred to are those of but one faction within a diverse range of armed militant organizations. But, to keep it simple, all the bad guys need to succeed is for us to fail to defeat them. They do not need to "win" anything. As long as they are able to keep mounting attacks indefinitely - upon US & Coalition forces as well as upon Iraqi security forces and civilians, it becomes more likely that domestic US political pressure will force an eventual pullout. That is the ultimate reason why there is such a significant focus on standing up effective Iraqi military and law enforcement capability.
CSIS, dated 15 June: Iraqi Force Development in 2006
QUOTE
The MNF-I and Iraqi government seem to be committed to giving Iraq effective internal and security police forces that will serve the nation, not given sects and ethnic groups. There has been no in-depth reporting about progress in this effort, and it faces major challenges in the form of militias and police and other security forces that are effectively under the control of regional or local leaders, most with ties to given sects and factions...
3. Do you believe the United States and it's Iraqi allies (along with the Coalition allies) will prevail given the current state of the insurgency in comparison to the sentiment on the homefront?
I hope so. But this is getting tougher for me. I have a deep emotional desire to see it succeed; I've been involved closely with Iraq since '90 - and have spent years on the ground from Desert Storm to Provide Comfort to UNSCOM to OIF. I've lost good friends in this effort. But its hard to remain positive in light of both the current situation in-country and the domestic political pressures that are active here at home.
I recommend taking a read of this 12 June cable from the Embassy indicative of worsening trends in Baghdad:
Snapshots from the Office: Public Affairs Staff Show Signs of Social Discord
3. Do you believe the United States and it's Iraqi allies (along with the Coalition allies) will prevail given the current state of the insurgency in comparison to the sentiment on the homefront?
Along with Mustang's great links, I thought I would add an assessment from a recent Retired Flag Officer Conference recently held at Ft. Carson. Gen. Barry McCaffrey (ret) wrote a pretty good after action review of the conference that I believe takes a balanced look at the situation.
Link
Along with Mustang's great links, I thought I would add an assessment from a recent Retired Flag Officer Conference recently held at Ft. Carson. Gen. Barry McCaffrey (ret) wrote a pretty good after action review of the conference that I believe takes a balanced look at the situation.
QUOTE
We face a serious strategic dilemma. Are U.S. combat troops operating in a police action governed by the rule of Iraqi law? Or are they a Coalition Military Force supporting a counter-insurgency campaign in a nation with almost no functioning institutions? The situation must remain ambiguous until the Iraqi government is actually operating effectively. We currently have excellent rules of engagement (ROE) governing the use of lethal force. These rules are now morphing under the pressures of political sensitivity at tactical level.
...
The U.S. will remain in a serious crisis in Iraq during the coming 24 months. There is decreasing U.S. domestic support for the war; although in my view the American people understand that we must not fail or we risk a ten year disaster of foreign policy in the vital Gulf Oil Region. U.S. public opinion may become increasingly alienated by Iraqi ingratitude for our sacrifice on their behalf (huge percentages of both the Shia and Sunni populations believe that the MNF Coalition forces are the single greatest threat to safety and security in Iraq today) ---and by astonishingly corrupt and incompetent Iraqi management of their own recovery.
...
The U.S. will remain in a serious crisis in Iraq during the coming 24 months. There is decreasing U.S. domestic support for the war; although in my view the American people understand that we must not fail or we risk a ten year disaster of foreign policy in the vital Gulf Oil Region. U.S. public opinion may become increasingly alienated by Iraqi ingratitude for our sacrifice on their behalf (huge percentages of both the Shia and Sunni populations believe that the MNF Coalition forces are the single greatest threat to safety and security in Iraq today) ---and by astonishingly corrupt and incompetent Iraqi management of their own recovery.
Link
Firstly, let's talk about that thread title. Jleavy, just which "some" have asserted that the insurgency were apparently successful? (for the answer, see Paul Krugman's timely article from 6/12/06 about the "Some" .... "The Some of All Fears.") Furthermore, you do realize that you've implied a conclusion about a reality of the past three years, but this article and its relevant conclusions are about the not-so-distant past and near future? These are two different topics: What these papers may reveal about the future, and what the "Some" have said in the past. Both could be correct.
1. Do you believe the insurgency to be weakening?
I think it's impossible to know the answer to this at this present time. We shall see. I hope with the passing of Zarqawi, that it will.
But the violence isn't subsiding. And neither are our troop deaths.
If some insurgents themselves admit it, though, then that is really something. But Zarqawi's circle is only part of the insurgency.
3. Do you believe the United States and it's Iraqi allies (along with the Coalition allies) will prevail given the current state of the insurgency in comparison to the sentiment on the homefront?
No, honestly I don't, ... not soon. Not with out a change in tactics and/or plan. I would love to see a plan or even some rhetoric which reflected the reality in Iraq. According to Juan Cole, there are presently four conflicts going on in Iraq:
1) The Sunni Arab guerrilla war to expel US troops from the Sunni heartland
2) The militant Shiite guerrilla war to expel the British from the south
3) The Sunni-Shiite civil war
4) The Kurdish war against Arabs and Turkmen in Kirkuk province, and the Arab and Turkmen guerrilla struggle against the encroaching Peshmerga (the Kurdish militia).
"The insurgency" is merely item #1 in the list. And even that, if you want to be accurate about the situation, could be further divided into sub-categories. Zarqawi's cell could be #1a. So, the article doesn't do a lot for me to improve my sense of hope: Zarqawi wasn't the leader of the whole insurgency.
1. Do you believe the insurgency to be weakening?
I think it's impossible to know the answer to this at this present time. We shall see. I hope with the passing of Zarqawi, that it will.
But the violence isn't subsiding. And neither are our troop deaths.
If some insurgents themselves admit it, though, then that is really something. But Zarqawi's circle is only part of the insurgency.
3. Do you believe the United States and it's Iraqi allies (along with the Coalition allies) will prevail given the current state of the insurgency in comparison to the sentiment on the homefront?
No, honestly I don't, ... not soon. Not with out a change in tactics and/or plan. I would love to see a plan or even some rhetoric which reflected the reality in Iraq. According to Juan Cole, there are presently four conflicts going on in Iraq:
1) The Sunni Arab guerrilla war to expel US troops from the Sunni heartland
2) The militant Shiite guerrilla war to expel the British from the south
3) The Sunni-Shiite civil war
4) The Kurdish war against Arabs and Turkmen in Kirkuk province, and the Arab and Turkmen guerrilla struggle against the encroaching Peshmerga (the Kurdish militia).
"The insurgency" is merely item #1 in the list. And even that, if you want to be accurate about the situation, could be further divided into sub-categories. Zarqawi's cell could be #1a. So, the article doesn't do a lot for me to improve my sense of hope: Zarqawi wasn't the leader of the whole insurgency.
1. Do you believe the insurgency to be weakening?
I haven't a clue. As others have indicated the warring gangs, if you like, are diffuse and we only got the head of one of them. Also the point was made that wars with multiple objectives including internal ones are being played out and it is hard to see how we are going to be able to broker a solution.
2. If so - do you believe the tactics discussed in the article that the Iraqi insurgency wishes to use will succeed?
First off I'm not sure the paper isn't a fraud and I'm not the only one. Michael Ledeen a well known neocon and writer for National Review has some fun with it.
The Zarqawi Document is Nonsense
We seem to have been making threats against Iran without help from the Jihadists. What is it we have been doing so right that they need to correct us on?
3. Do you believe the United States and it's Iraqi allies (along with the Coalition allies) will prevail given the current state of the insurgency in comparison to the sentiment on the homefront?
I'm not sure I even know what "prevail" means here. I'm not sure the BA does either. Is somebody suppose to sign a document of surrender? We shoved a stick into a hornet's nest and now all the angry buzzing hornets are suppose to make nice? These regional-sectarian problems were built in before we arrived there. Even the British complained about them when they were running things. We seem to be exacerbating them.
Iraqi polls have shown that the majority of Iraqis think our presence is provoking a lot of the conflict and preventing a solution. Furthermore they think we are building bases for permanent use which casts doubt on our professed willingness to leave, if and when the Iraqi government and military proves capable of standing on their own in a unified way. How can you be over there killing Iraqis and being killed in turn as the focus of a home grown resistance and still see your presence as a path to peace? It doesn't help that nice chunks of our tax money and the oil money is being syphoned off to fund the insurgency and feed a whole corrupt system, particularly in the government itself. Hmmmm, fund the opposition plus allow a whole bunch of mercenary gangsters, some in high government positions, to pig out on our money and exact tribute from the flow of black gold. Now that's the way to win a war! Under the circumstances I'm sure some of the beneficiaries would like to keep this game going on and on, both for the bucks and for insurgent training purposes. Also they can hemorage us to death like they did the Russians.
Perhaps the Iraqis will get fed up, tell the US to leave and then, assuming we accomodate them, work out their own solution. I don't see anything better on the horizon.
I haven't a clue. As others have indicated the warring gangs, if you like, are diffuse and we only got the head of one of them. Also the point was made that wars with multiple objectives including internal ones are being played out and it is hard to see how we are going to be able to broker a solution.
2. If so - do you believe the tactics discussed in the article that the Iraqi insurgency wishes to use will succeed?
First off I'm not sure the paper isn't a fraud and I'm not the only one. Michael Ledeen a well known neocon and writer for National Review has some fun with it.
The Zarqawi Document is Nonsense
We seem to have been making threats against Iran without help from the Jihadists. What is it we have been doing so right that they need to correct us on?
3. Do you believe the United States and it's Iraqi allies (along with the Coalition allies) will prevail given the current state of the insurgency in comparison to the sentiment on the homefront?
I'm not sure I even know what "prevail" means here. I'm not sure the BA does either. Is somebody suppose to sign a document of surrender? We shoved a stick into a hornet's nest and now all the angry buzzing hornets are suppose to make nice? These regional-sectarian problems were built in before we arrived there. Even the British complained about them when they were running things. We seem to be exacerbating them.
Iraqi polls have shown that the majority of Iraqis think our presence is provoking a lot of the conflict and preventing a solution. Furthermore they think we are building bases for permanent use which casts doubt on our professed willingness to leave, if and when the Iraqi government and military proves capable of standing on their own in a unified way. How can you be over there killing Iraqis and being killed in turn as the focus of a home grown resistance and still see your presence as a path to peace? It doesn't help that nice chunks of our tax money and the oil money is being syphoned off to fund the insurgency and feed a whole corrupt system, particularly in the government itself. Hmmmm, fund the opposition plus allow a whole bunch of mercenary gangsters, some in high government positions, to pig out on our money and exact tribute from the flow of black gold. Now that's the way to win a war! Under the circumstances I'm sure some of the beneficiaries would like to keep this game going on and on, both for the bucks and for insurgent training purposes. Also they can hemorage us to death like they did the Russians.
Perhaps the Iraqis will get fed up, tell the US to leave and then, assuming we accomodate them, work out their own solution. I don't see anything better on the horizon.
I think the notion that the insurgency is weakening to be ridiculous. The latest offer of amnesty for insurgents makes that idea absurd.
It's too bad Dan Rather didn't release the latest "papers" from Iraq. Maybe they'd get the scrutiny they deserve from the Iraq invasion and occupation supporters.
It's too bad Dan Rather didn't release the latest "papers" from Iraq. Maybe they'd get the scrutiny they deserve from the Iraq invasion and occupation supporters.
1. Do you believe the insurgency to be weakening?
I think with the current martial law lock down of Bahgdad, and the violence even getting worse- and , as mentioned before, Iraqi forces are heavily infiltrated. I think it is even kinda silly to even suggest it- flies in the face of all evidence- unless you are talking about one small splinter group?
2. If so - do you believe the tactics discussed in the article that the Iraqi insurgency wishes to use will succeed?
I think first there has to be some independent accounting of whether or not the document is a fake. for all the animosity thrown towards Dan Rather, as DR mentioned- we certainly don't hold the GW regime as accountable- which seems absurd to me, the president doesn't have to be as reliable in his convictions as a TV anchorman- but this wouldn't be the first forged document touted as proof by this Admin- yellowcake anyone?
3. Do you believe the United States and it's Iraqi allies (along with the Coalition allies) will prevail given the current state of the insurgency in comparison to the sentiment on the homefront?
I guess we have to have a clear definition of "prevail"- we could, I suppose, declare victory and go home right now- correct? I mean, we got Saddam, installed a puppet goverment- now it needs to stand on it's own.
Seriously- please defined "prevailed" and give it a clear timetable of when you see us "prevail" and we can debate it.
I think with the current martial law lock down of Bahgdad, and the violence even getting worse- and , as mentioned before, Iraqi forces are heavily infiltrated. I think it is even kinda silly to even suggest it- flies in the face of all evidence- unless you are talking about one small splinter group?
2. If so - do you believe the tactics discussed in the article that the Iraqi insurgency wishes to use will succeed?
I think first there has to be some independent accounting of whether or not the document is a fake. for all the animosity thrown towards Dan Rather, as DR mentioned- we certainly don't hold the GW regime as accountable- which seems absurd to me, the president doesn't have to be as reliable in his convictions as a TV anchorman- but this wouldn't be the first forged document touted as proof by this Admin- yellowcake anyone?
3. Do you believe the United States and it's Iraqi allies (along with the Coalition allies) will prevail given the current state of the insurgency in comparison to the sentiment on the homefront?
I guess we have to have a clear definition of "prevail"- we could, I suppose, declare victory and go home right now- correct? I mean, we got Saddam, installed a puppet goverment- now it needs to stand on it's own.
Seriously- please defined "prevailed" and give it a clear timetable of when you see us "prevail" and we can debate it.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.