AQ in Iraq

[NousDefionsDoc]

Picture of a weakened Iraqi insurgency

By Scott Peterson, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Fri Jun 16


BAGHDAD - An Al Qaeda document linked to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi purports to show that Iraq's insurgents believe they face a "current bleak situation" that may require fomenting a war between the US and Iran to "get out of this crisis."


The document, released Thursday, could not be independently authenticated. But senior Iraqi officials were ebullient about its message, as well as the magnitude of intelligence "treasure" that has emerged surrounding Mr. Zarqawi's death.

This is "the beginning of the end of Al Qaeda in Iraq," Mowafaq al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security adviser, declared Thursday, adding that the data include network names and locations gleaned from Al Qaeda computers captured before Zarqawi's death. "The government is on the attack now ... to destroy Al Qaeda and to finish this terrorist organization in Iraq."

"The documents and all the arrests mean there has been a depletion of talent" among Zarqawi's group, says Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at the Swedish National Defense College in Stockholm.

"They will have to lick their wounds and reconfigure their security, to protect whatever assets they have left," says Mr. Ranstorp, who heads the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies. The document indicates that Al Qaeda needs to recalibrate "not just psychological warfare, but must shape its actions to get some traction in the population."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060616/ts_csm/oqaeda_1

----------------------------

Thoughts? I would be wary of counting chickens before hatching and what not. These "last throes" can go on for years if one is not vigilant.

[Gypsy]

From a purely civilian POV, my immediate thought after hearing we got al-Zarqawi, the subsequent intel and the other BGs etc. was while it is outstanding news and a severe blow to them, it would be a big mistake to consider this "the beginning of the end".

To me AQ is like a monster with several heads, cut one off and another pops up to take its place. This fight won't ever be over...

[Doc]

I don't know what to think about AQ in Iraq. My first thought was that they should have layed low after the invasion and waited for the U.S. to leave, then go into action against the freshly formed Iraqi government and it's military. Strategically, that would have been the smart thing to do and they would have had a better chance of succeeding. G.W. would have been out of office by then and a new President would have been in his place to make decisions.

Evidently they thought it better to go against the resolve of the wrong U.S. President. I think his support of Israel and their visceral hatred of him in general compeled them to go against any thought of them laying low for the moment. It appears these folks are emotionally centered which is not good for their behalf. Emotional people make mistakes.

Is this the end of the insurgency? I don't think so, but I will go on record and say we have turned a corner in Iraq.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Doc,
I agree it would have been easier to wait, but that wouldn't give them the "win". They, like most insurgents, are not about results, they are about the fight. Propaganda of the deed.

Look at HAMAS.

[CoLawman]

To me AQ is like a monster with several heads, cut one off and another pops up to take its place. This fight won't ever be over

I agree that AQ is like the Hydra. And like Heracles we have certainly figured out that to remove one head only resulted in a another growing in it's place. Again borrowing from Heracles we have figured out that once the head is severed the wound must be cauterized to prevent the growth of a new "head".

The cauterization occurred after our troops killed Abu Misssorry. Raids were conducted, intelligence materials gathered, and their organization became somewhat of an open book.

I am an optimist and I firmly believe that this is the beginning of the end. I might be overly optimistic in thinking that the Chechnyan Leaders discovery and death was somehow linked to what was learned from MsSorry's documents.

Dismantling AQ does not resolve all the concerns of this war. It does allow us to concentrate our efforts against fewer concerns. I also found it interesting that AQ in Iraq would identify MsSorry's replacement. This Egyptian understudy just put a large target on his torso. Take him out quickly and I bet the next in line is a little less apt to have the AQ Public Information Officer release his identity!

[Solid]

To quickly jump in on this one,
This quote: "could not be independently authenticated. But senior Iraqi officials were ebullient about its message," bothers me. Indig Iraqi intel publications have often been inconsistent with reality. Either way, two things strike me as important:
1. AQ is a cellular organization; it is very possible or likely that "AQ in Iraq" is constructed the same way: in fact, "AQ in Iraq" may be a loose affiliation of different groups/cells instead of a single monolithic organization. If these guys have been practicing the kind of field craft which has so far been typical of AQ, there will be firewalls between groups, and we'll only be able to roll up one cell.

2. I may take a lot of heat for this POV, but IMO the situation in Iraq is now a LOT less about AQ in Iraq (ie: international terrorism) and a LOT more about a flat out civil war. AQ fanned the flames, but to be honest even if we were able to smash AQ in Iraq entirely, this situation is by no means 'coming to an end'; or even 'the beginning of the end'. Civil Wars are nasty, highly complex affairs, especially when they involve 1) A country which depends on high resource rent (ie: oil) and 2) a country with several ethnic groups with a history of war who are not already divided into very nice, regular civilization-shapes. They also occur regardless of the operations of terror groups within the AO.
Furthermore, civil wars are something which no government is very good at dealing with because they are all highly individualistic and lessons cannot easily be generalized between them.

Politically-fanned optimism shortly before Tet was one of the reasons public moral crumbled in VN (another civil war). If we're going to be in for the long haul, which it seems we have to be in order to succeed, realism needs to be at a premium.

AQ in Iraq will not be the deciding factor in the peaceful resolution of this conflict. Yes, they can wreak havoc, but No, their removal will not end hostilities.

JMO,

Solid

PS: A great read on this subject would be Biddle's "Seeing Baghdad, Thinking Saigon" article in March/April 06 Foreign Affairs.

[hoepoe]

Good morning all

While it may not be the beginning of the end, it is indeed one step closer to the end. In addition to this is it certainly a huge blow to the current AQ setup, not only in Iraq, but worldwide.

Not only the demise of the Zarqawi, bu the intel collected from his hideout is too invaluable.

Often, due to enemy OPSEC, records of contacts, planned operations etc., are not stored or written and are present in the minds of leaders such as Zarqawi hence a neutralization of this level will indeed prove to me a major setback for AQ.

True a new leader has sprung up and there will be after him too,but as i said in my first paragraph, this is a step closer to the end of AQ in Iraq. To quote, "Every journey begins with one step."

My only wish is that all the future AQ leaders that are neutralized get to see the coalition force soldiers faces as they (the hostiles) make their way to heaven. That gave me a warm fuzzy feeling for Zarqawi to know that the US got him.

Hoepoe

[Solid]

Hoepoe,
I agree with you to an extent. Yes, obviously Zarcoward's death and any intel reaped from it will be beneficial to the GWoT. However, AQ will continue to be a major problem as long as 1) they have money and 2) they have recruits. AQ is arguably one of the most, if not the most, disparately constructed terrorist "groups" in existence. In fact, previous assumptions that AQ can really be called a terrorist group have recently been called into doubt- AQ is, it seems, more of a "resource and guidance" "charity" for those looking to attack non- Wahabbists. As such, we can roll up everything Zarcoward has ever touched (with the possible exception of UBL, as he is still apparently sitting on top of a giant pile of gold) and still be left with a very distinct, capable, and threatening enemy.

What I'm trying to say is that killing all these guys is necessary, but will not solve the problem. We need to cut their resources, material and human, to truly put them down for good. To use the Hercules metaphor- Even with Zarqawi and intel exploitation we've just cut off one of the Hydra's heads. To actually cauterize the wound, we need to deprive the entire beast of human and material resources.

Long term vs. short term, if you will.

The only reason I am hammering on about this is because the "Deck of cards" approach to terrorism which has been used by the US since 9/12 is misleading to the public, and could lead to a very negative public relations backlash if we don't start hyping the necessity and progression of the "long game".

JMO,

Solid

[TFM]

I'm sure the insurgents would love to see us rush off into Iran. I think President Bush has proved that he will finish one job properly before starting a new one so I don't believe they will get their wish until we have an abundant force to really do it. If we decide to do it. Iraq's indigenous forces seem to be getting stronger with time, and it will only be a matter of time until they can handle troubles of their own. By then a new president will be the deciding factor. Continue Bush's legacy, or go back to liberalism. Terrorists will never cease to exist no matter what retarted name they choose to give themselves. They will all meet the same fate though.