Do No Evil – The most interesting discovery during a visit to Jalalabad, where Osama bin Laden planted his flag in 1996, is that Al-Qaeda seems to have all but disappeared. The group is on the run, too, in Iraq, and that raises some interesting questions about how to pursue this terrorist enemy in the future. "Al-Qaeda is not a topic of conversation her
FTA
"evidence from the field suggests two conclusions:
First, Al-Qaeda isn't a permanent boogeyman; it's losing ground in Iraq and Afghanistan because of US counterinsurgency tactics, especially the alliances the Americans have built with tribal leaders and the aggressive use of Special Forces to capture or kill its operatives. ......shouldn't require a big, semi-permanent US military presence in Iraq or Afghanistan. Local security forces can handle a growing share of responsibility
Second, the essential mission in combating Al-Qaeda now is to adopt in Pakistan the tactics that are working in Iraq and Afghanistan. This means alliances with tribal warlords to bring economic development to the isolated mountain valleys ........."
seems to be a lot of covert operations going on that we never hear about....
Then you haven't been paying any attention to our briefings. We've admitted to finding a hard drive with literally a command structure outline of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. We've successfully used the intel over the last year hitting almost every stronghold, safe house and bomb making plant listed. American and Iraqi troops have done a great job winning the hearts of the locals too. Now when suspected insurgents are around instead of hiding locals identify them and call for help.
Another issue the press forgets are the positives we've been doing. Contrary to the lies of the left, more people now have running water, sewers and electricity. During Saddam's time, even downtown Baghdad didn't have real sewers. If you were a village not related to his tribe, you might not even have a city well with clean drinking water. He was a real SOB in keeping his people down. Most Iraqis understand we want to leave as much as they want control of their own country.
They will say you are just a Halliburton flunky. They are true believers in the White flag theory.
Just a bit cautious after hearing the previous six or seven lies about why we have 160.000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq at the cost of several billion a month.
And don't forget all the multiple millions out troops killed. I am tired of the super liberal lies.
would that be these "lies" endoscope?
W.H.O. Says Iraq Civilian Death Toll Higher Than Cited
January 10, 2008
"The World Health Organization on Wednesday waded into the controversial subject of Iraqi civilian deaths, publishing a study that estimated that the number of deaths from the start of the war through June 2006 was at least twice as high as the oft-cited Iraq Body Count."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/world/middlee...
or these?....
Poll: Civilian toll in Iraq may top 1M
A British survey offers the highest estimate to date.
September 14, 2007
.... a new survey suggested that the civilian death toll from the war could be more than 1 million.
The figure from ORB, a British polling agency that has conducted several surveys in Iraq, followed statements this week from the U.S. military defending itself against accusations it was trying to play down Iraqi deaths to make its strategy appear successful.
ORB said it drew its conclusion from responses to the question about those living under one roof: "How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003?"
Based on Iraq's estimated number of households -- 4,050,597 -- it said the 1.2 million figure was reasonable.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/l...
but then of course there are these facts that nobody can deny
"We don't do body counts." General Tommy Franks
"We don't do body counts." Then Secretary for Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
"...but then of course there are these facts that nobody can deny..."
Here are some facts any idiot could grasp: Tommy Franks isn't the commander in Iraq and hasn't been for years; and Rumsfeld hasn't been the Secretary of Defense for 1.5 years.
Your "facts" pretty much are meaningless.
and this is supposed to mean... what? they may be gone but nothing has changed. we don't do body counts. not today, not yesterday, not tomorrow. fact, idiot. and because they said it it's official.
how can we possibly begin to count five years after this illegal war began?
1.... 2..... 3..... 4.... 1.2million. or there abouts.
what is meaningless are your childish stupid excuses that try to deny the facts. pathetic
Funny, but other "tolls" put the figure much, much lower. This one has it at about 91,000, and that includes the sectarian violence and terrorist attacks.
yes, they are the ones that could be lined up and counted. a line up count that began some time after the war began. funny thing about war, dead bodies are not too good at lining up to be counted.
but what am i doing!?! i'm offering an intelligent explanation to the complete idiot who thinks the nyt photoshops pentagon pics!! lol
Please, Tegan can you provide a reference to just how many al-qaeda-Iraq members there are?
During the cold war, we(US Army) had manuals of Soviet Order of Battle, est troop strenght, equipment if we saw this they were planning that. I doubt if AQ acts that way. No Order of Battle, no cell numbers are this strength led by that person. Any number would be a guess, it will always be a guess. No one is sure how many went through the camps in Afghanistan or Pakistan or any where else for that matter. Start thinking "out of the box" it will be the only way we can get in front of them and not be reactive to there attacks.
The Democrats are in a difficult position. Their whole strategy for winning in 08 depends on our failure in the Middle East. They wanted this to be like Vietnam, and they would defund the war, and we would have failed so badly we would never defend this country again. If we win, they will lose Presidential Elections for a decade or more.
The destruction of al-Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan and Iraq will NOT make it easier to defeat radical terrorism. In fact, one of the strengths of such enemies is their ability to exist and operate in so many places simultaneously.
To date we can claim to have made some progress in both of the countries where US military forces are directly involved, but the radical Islamists have established a new (and perhaps more persistent) stronghold cross the border in Pakistan. We have, through aid to our allies, perhaps weakened them in the Phillipines, but we have certainly lost ground in Malaysia. Further, we have accomplished virtually nothing in Somalia, Mauretania, Indonesia, along the Argentine-... border, Nigeria, Algeria, or among the Islamic nations of Central Asia (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, etc.). Killing al-Qaeda is like pulling vines--you never seem to get all the roots, and they keep popping up where you think you've cleared them away.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
soulkeeper009
tkeeley
birddog54
Teech
ssusak
AlphaGnosis
bibbicletus
nickjones321
mcarpentry
lovemylibs
thinkingserious
windy01
BJTJ
hurr1
eddie107
Amroch
crghss
avpd85
ckurasri
aust
Generica
icono1
capnews
simonsez
omerazam
abntv
aleksander_konrad
Mdiar
udwxgx46
Endoscopy
MichaelRhodente
Hustler101
itisoysustas
laynekerr1972
bugluver
BoBo in Texas
Wolfie2007
mmrhe
nightcrawlerX
Klarissa
xorabotta
ningyo
tbkennedy53
dandt1612
ZiegfeldGirl
nostalgia
tanglang
nowsourcing
alamala
oldgringo
94)
Obama's and Democrats' worst nightmare: More good news from Iraq and Afghanistan. How can this be? A year ago Reid, Pelosi and the liberals on Propeller/Netscape swore the war was lost! Now they just grumble and swear.
They aren't known as the Retreat & Surrender Caucus for nothing.
I've been saying this for the last year or so but whenever I have the left always called me a liar or worse. It's nice to see I'm proven correct.
"I've been saying this for the last year or so but whenever I have the left always called me a liar or worse. It's nice to see I'm proven correct."
Now their line of illogic says they just will show up elsewhere. If you capture or kill an al Qaeda leader, they say it was a waste of time because another on will take his place. But they still whine about catching Bin Laden.
If you uproot them from a former stronghold, lefties will tell you it was a waste of time because they will go elsewhere. In the meantime, Obama said he would take military action in Pakistan to uproot al Qaeda.
I like what the story here suggests about the need to get Pakistan more involved as Afghanis and Iraqis have. Makes more sense than the Obama approach.
libsrfunny
When I read the article, I got the distinct impression that the reason for less friction with Al-Queda was due to the alliance with groups who are not Al-Queda. And as I recall this alliance is actually a "put them on the payroll" type peace. I'm not sure that is any different from using Mercenaries. At any event, the peace lasts only as long as the money.
By the way. Osama Bin Laden didn't arrive in Afghanistan in 1996, he went there in the 80's as an ally of the United States. We armed the Mujjhedean ( which included OBL ) in the proxy fight against the USSR. Actually OBL was a hero to the U S until we placed a base in Saudi Arabia. He warned before we did it that he would take the placing of the base as a declaration of War. Guess he meant it.
"He warned before we did it that he would take the placing of the base as a declaration of War. Guess he meant it."
Too bad for him the Saudi government turned him down and invited the U.S. to come in and kick Saddam's hind end back to Iraq. Sure, the CIA helped Muslims defeat the Soviet empire with weapons and specialist support. Bin Laden was all for it then. There was a time when Ho Chi Minh accepted U.S. support to help fight the Japanese.
But Bin laden lost his head and lost his nation and family in the process. Now if he is alive, he's holed up in some cave with no family, no nation and no life.
The article said nothing of paying groups - mercenaries, you called them. But you are going to believe what you want. That is your right - no matter how wrong you are.
The war in Iraq is obviously over. We won big time! Al Qaida is vanquished. George Bush will be remembered as the greatest president in history. No argument there.
As for Bin Laden? ...."Now if he is alive, he's holed up in some cave with no family, no nation and no life...."
Dont think so. He's roughing it out on the ranch in Crawford. Bo Peep looks after the girlfriends he shares with Dumbya.
On January 21, 2008, they'll all turn up in South America for a well earned "victory" vacation. That will finally be Mission Accomplished!
I have yet to see any reliable estimates of al-qaeda-iraq strength. I have asked repeatedly here, but nobody seems to be able to be able to provide even a ball park number.
If the numbers are so hard to come by, how can a person judge the significance of a decrease?
---I wonder since the U.S. has no plans to reduce it's troop size.
---I wonder since the U.S. has no plans to reduce the dollars spent.
Does this mean that al-qaeda-iraq was not that important to begin with?
Read the article. It says former al Qaeda strongholds now are quiet with no terrorists in site. Also, 3,500 U.S. troops are scheduled to come home from Iraq.
So, it is possible to tell, and there are plans to reduce troop size.
As far as "reliable estimates," how would you suggest we get them? Go door to door conducting a census: "Is any member of your household a member of al Qaeda? If so, how many and what ages?"
Based on the Commander-in-chief's comments, "al-qaeda-iraq" seems to be a primary enemy of the U.S.
Even I have read about the first rule of war: KNOW YOUR ENEMY
If the commander in chief has dispached 160,000 troops and is spending billions of dollars a month to conquer an enemy or unknown strength there is a real problem..
LOL
Let al Queada send them there and they can die there. I like that better than them sending them here and we kill them here.
This is NOT a nightmare, it is GREAT news.
I am only puzzled by Mr. Bush's plans to keep u.S. troop levels constant.
I am only puzzled by Mr. Bush's plans to keep war funding constant.
I am only puzzled as to why the Iraqis can't, after five-plus years, take over a greater share of policing Iraq.
There are no plans to keep troop levels constant. The plan is to withdraw troops soon.
Bush does not handle war funding. Congress does.
Iraqis are taking over a greater share of policing Iraq.
You might have read the story yesterday about an Iraqi force raiding an al Qaeda stronghold and saying they caught the top al Qaeda leader in Iraq. The U.S. military says it's mistaken identity. But the point is, Iraqis ARE policing more and more of their own nation. In time, they will police all of it.
Bush has said CLEARLY that troop levels will remain constant.
Bush proposed funding, congress approves or disapproves his requests.
Based on U.S. participation remaining relatively constant, I question the assertion of greater Iraqi involvement
One story is great news, but let's see the bottom line.
You have no idea how government works lol. Presidents do not request funding.
And, try reading the papers: 3,500 troops to be pulled out if Iraq in the next few weeks.
David Ignatius!!!! Another of the "american" zionist traitors that has been feeding americans this kind of lies for years now. Interesting to see which people here are either still suckers for these lies and/or are active traitors to america.
Yes thats right hyper, just go ahead and label everyone who you disagree with as Zionist traitors! If you say it enough, it will become true!
He is a true conspiracy buff. His conspiracy is Zionism. Alive and well in his own mind.
If we're going to depend solely on numbers then we have to look at the long picture. What it comes down to is that not only are the numbers of al-Quaeda much higher than they were before Bush invaded Iraq (i.e. higher than ZERO), but they're given daily boosts for recruitment through the actions of American soldiers commanded by (ostensibly) BushCo.
Whos to say those numbers would not be at the same level now even if we had not gone into Iraq
where is the evidence to prove that the AQ numbers have gone up because we are in Iraq
"where is the evidence to prove that the AQ numbers have gone up because we are in Iraq"
There were zero al-Quaeda in Iraq. Now there are many.
Many almost always is more than none.
LOL
You are saying the 9/11 commission was lying when they said there were al-Queada training camps there.
They said that Hussein was not part of the conspiracy so you take that to mean that they were not there. Typical lib.
well let's take a look at the report and see what it has to say.
"Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections....
....we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf
hmmm, looks like the lies are all yours, endoscope
That was before the first Gulf war.
In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.
Different name but still al Queada.
Don't ask a true liberal believer for evidence. They can't handle it.
The evidence is the number of Americans coming home in body bags because we illegally invaded Iraq for the purpose of stealing their oil.