Al Qaeda won't "take over" Iraq, if we redeploy

[DeadCanDance]

The NeoCon cry of “Al Qaeda will take over Iraq if we leave!“ is just not based on reality. As has been pointed out many times, by many people.

Al Qaeda can’t “take over” Iraq if we withdraw. From leading U.S. security expert at the decidedly non-liberal Cato Institute:

Expert: Al-Qaida can't conquer Iraq

WASHINGTON, July 20 (UPI) -- A leading U.S. expert says al-Qaida would not be able to take over Iraq if the U.S. military left the country.

"It is highly improbable that al-Qaida could use Iraq as the kind of safe haven it enjoyed in Afghanistan," Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president in charge of foreign policy and defense studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, said in a recently released memo.

The terrorist organization would not enjoy the same kind of protection and freedom as it did in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime because it is not embraced by most Iraqis, Carpenter wrote.

"Al-Qaida also had a much larger force in Afghanistan -- an estimated 18,000 fighters. Even the U.S. government concedes that there are fewer than 2,000 al-Qaida fighters in Iraq, and the Iraq Study Group put the figure at only 1,300," Carpenter wrote. "It strains credulity to imagine 1,300 fighters -- and foreigners at that -- taking over and controlling a country of 26 million people."

A poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland last year found 94 percent of Sunni Muslims in Iraq, 98 percent of Shiites and 100 percent of Kurds had a somewhat or very unfavorable view of al-Qaida, Carpenter wrote.

"Even if U.S. troops left Iraq, the successor government would continue to be dominated by the Kurds and Shiites, since they make up more than 80 percent of Iraq's population," Carpenter said. "That doesn't suggest a reliable safe haven for al-Qaida." ………

http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Briefing/2007/07/20/expert_alqaida_cant_conquer_iraq/3090/

Pentagon withdrawl wargaming does not envision an Al Qaeda “take over” of Iraq:

Exit Strategies

By Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. RicksWashington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 17, 2007; Page A01

If U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three developments would be likely to unfold. 1) Majority Shiites would drive Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province; 2) Southern Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups; and 3) the Kurdish north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there. In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations. (no scenario where al qaeda "takes over")

That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/16/AR2007071601680_2.html

 

[onedomino]

It is disingenuous how you use the word "redeploy," when you actually mean surrender. More than 1000 foreign murderers running around Iraq performing truck bombings and homicide bombings will destroy any chance for stability. And the weak Shi'ite majority government will not be able to stop them. Moreover, Al Qaeda may find refuge in rural Sunni areas. From there they can train and equip more foreign murderers to bomb the government and prepare killers for strikes elsewhere in the world. Your "redeployment," i.e., surrender, is a perfect plan for an even greater amount of death and destruction in Iraq.

 

[Waterrescuedude]

I do agree this individual did actually mean SURRENDER. Something the US DOES NOT DO. We dont back down from a fight. I say that we deploy the boxes on top of all us military and government buildings and vehicles. What it does is sends out signals to the frequencies that are commonly used over there and will remotly detonate the bomb before it arrives at its target. So what we blow those bastard up before they try and blow us up good riddance to the tangos. I have a friend over there right now that told me about a girl who is about 12 years old always goes and warns our soldiers of bomb locations so they can avoid that area. You know that girl would get killed if they find out that she is telling people. I say she is awesome for saving american lives.

 

[Gunny]

The NeoCon cry of “Al Qaeda will take over Iraq if we leave!“ is just not based on reality. As has been pointed out many times, by many people.

Al Qaeda can’t “take over” Iraq if we withdraw. From leading U.S. security expert at the decidedly non-liberal Cato Institute:



Pentagon withdrawl wargaming does not envision an Al Qaeda “take over” of Iraq:

Who ever said AQ would take over Iraq? The Iran-backed shia will more than likely take over most of it.

 

[DeadCanDance]

It is disingenuous how you use the word "redeploy," when you actually mean surrender……..

Yawn….more talking point gibberish from kool aid drunk Bush-fans. Plenty of retired military combat vets, including prominent retired republican generals, have stated that withdrawing from Iraq is the “least bad” strategic option we have. It doesn't serve our interest to baby sit an iraqi civil war.

Al Qaeda may find refuge in rural Sunni areas.

“A poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland last year found 94 percent of Sunni Muslims in Iraq, 98 percent of Shiites and 100 percent of Kurds had a somewhat or very unfavorable view of al-Qaida, Carpenter wrote.”

I do agree this individual did actually mean SURRENDER. Something the US DOES NOT DO. We dont back down from a fight.

“We“??? I don’t see you over there fighting. Get your ass over there and fight in your war, if you think its worth it to stay in Iraq.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Who ever said AQ would take over Iraq? The Iran-backed shia will more than likely take over most of it.

The Iran-backed shia will more than likely take over most of it.

agreed. And since they are shia, their reaction to sunni extremists like Al Qaeda, will be more likely to chop their heads off, than give them safe haven.

In addition, while iraqi shia have some cultural and spiritual ties to Iran, they still are, after all, Arabs. Iraqi arabs are unlikely to be mere puppets of the persians. Persians and arabs are traditional blood enemies going back for a thousand years.

 

[Gunny]

Yawn….more talking point gibberish from kool aid drunk Bush-fans. Plenty of retired military combat vets, including prominent retired republican generals, have stated that withdrawing from Iraq is the “least bad” strategic option we have. It doesn't serve our interest to baby sit an iraqi civil war.



“A poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland last year found 94 percent of Sunni Muslims in Iraq, 98 percent of Shiites and 100 percent of Kurds had a somewhat or very unfavorable view of al-Qaida, Carpenter wrote.”



“We“??? I don’t see you over there fighting. Get your ass over there and fight in your war, if you think its worth it to stay in Iraq.

I don't see you over there fighting either. So, by YOUR own standard, what is YOUR concern?

 

[Bern80]

There are a couple words I get real tired of hearing in the Iraq war debate. They are 'win' and 'surrender'. In the context of Iraq I don't see how are troops can actually do either of those.

What exactley is there to be won? Sure we have 'won' wars, but Iraq is a little different. In my view what we're doing now is our best to keep the peace while they attempt to form a government. While the U.S. body count is high the Iraqi body count is even higher because most of the violence has been sectarian, one sect against another, not against U.S. forces. The only people we're fighting is the very small contigent of Al Queda in the country. In which case Iraq is just the theatre between two factions. It's almost two seperate conflicts at this point. the sectarian vilonce and the limited direct targeting of U.S. troops by Al Queda in the form of IEDs. The battle against Al Queda and terrorism at large will not be won or lost in Iraq. So again there is nothing to 'win' or lose by staying in, or leaving Iraq.

Which brings up Surrender. You can't really surrender what you can't win in the first place and this is where I fault many republicans for using words like win and surrender to make their points when neither are accurate in terms of the actions we could take. Surrender means you give up against the enemy and the only real enemy in Iraq is the limited number of Al Queda. Even if we did leave Iraq it isn't realistic to think we would stop going after them or 'surrender' to them.

 

[Waterrescuedude]

Yawn….more talking point gibberish from kool aid drunk Bush-fans. Plenty of retired military combat vets, including prominent retired republican generals, have stated that withdrawing from Iraq is the “least bad” strategic option we have. It doesn't serve our interest to baby sit an iraqi civil war.



“A poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland last year found 94 percent of Sunni Muslims in Iraq, 98 percent of Shiites and 100 percent of Kurds had a somewhat or very unfavorable view of al-Qaida, Carpenter wrote.”



“We“??? I don’t see you over there fighting. Get your ass over there and fight in your war, if you think its worth it to stay in Iraq.

I spent my time in the military. Other than to say that I am a veteran I don't care to discuss it with you. So go fuck your self you worthless XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXX you get the fuq over there. IF YOU CANT SUPPORT THE TROOPS GO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM!!!!!!

 

[onedomino]

Yawn

“We“??? I don’t see you over there fighting. Get your ass over there and fight in your war, if you think its worth it to stay in Iraq.

Tired? Try waking up. Get yourself over there and offer your surrender. I am sure Al Qaeda will warmly receive your sniveling weakness.

 

[dilloduck]

Yawn….more talking point gibberish from kool aid drunk Bush-fans. Plenty of retired military combat vets, including prominent retired republican generals, have stated that withdrawing from Iraq is the “least bad” strategic option we have. It doesn't serve our interest to baby sit an iraqi civil war.



“A poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland last year found 94 percent of Sunni Muslims in Iraq, 98 percent of Shiites and 100 percent of Kurds had a somewhat or very unfavorable view of al-Qaida, Carpenter wrote.”



“We“??? I don’t see you over there fighting. Get your ass over there and fight in your war, if you think its worth it to stay in Iraq.

You assessment that the only effect US military presence is having in Iraq takes the form of "baby sitting a civil war" is naively simplistic.

 

[onedomino]

There are a couple words I get real tired of hearing in the Iraq war debate. They are 'win' and 'surrender'. In the context of Iraq I don't see how are troops can actually do either of those.

What exactley is there to be won? Sure we have 'won' wars, but Iraq is a little different. In my view what we're doing now is our best to keep the peace while they attempt to form a government. While the U.S. body count is high the Iraqi body count is even higher because most of the violence has been sectarian, one sect against another, not against U.S. forces. The only people we're fighting is the very small contigent of Al Queda in the country. In which case Iraq is just the theatre between two factions. It's almost two seperate conflicts at this point. the sectarian vilonce and the limited direct targeting of U.S. troops by Al Queda in the form of IEDs. The battle against Al Queda and terrorism at large will not be won or lost in Iraq. So again there is nothing to 'win' or lose by staying in, or leaving Iraq.

Which brings up Surrender. You can't really surrender what you can't win in the first place and this is where I fault many republicans for using words like win and surrender to make their points when neither are accurate in terms of the actions we could take. Surrender means you give up against the enemy and the only real enemy in Iraq is the limited number of Al Queda. Even if we did leave Iraq it isn't realistic to think we would stop going after them or 'surrender' to them.

What can be won? How about the defeat of Al Qaeda in Iraq? How about securing the Iraqi Constitution and Government that 12 million people voted for and America has given up thousands of lives and injuries to obtain? How can we surrender? Follow DCD's above posted suggestion for surrender and thereby let Al Qaeda, and Sunni and Shi'ite murder squads run unopposed in Iraq. Thus giving free reign to those killers who want to rip up the Iraqi Constitution.

 

[DeadCanDance]

I spent my time in the military. Other than to say that I am a veteran I don't care to discuss it with you. So go fuck your self you worthless XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXX XXXXX you get the fuq over there. IF YOU CANT SUPPORT THE TROOPS GO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM!!!!!!

" So go fuck your self you worthless XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXX XXXXX you get the fuq over there"

LMAO! Naturally, Gunny will be rushing in to rebuke you for this over the line insult - he chastises me for much, much milder stuff.

Its your war. You go fight in it. You want to stay there. 70% of america doesn't.

BTW: Plenty of chickenhawks on plenty of message boards claim to veterans of combat careers. This is cyberspace; you can invent any kind of a fantasy persona you want. Me? I'm a rocket scientist.

 

[Gunny]

" So go fuck your self you worthless XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXX XXXXX you get the fuq over there"

LMAO! Naturally, Gunny will be rushing in to rebuke you for this over the line insult - he chastises me for much, much milder stuff.

Its your war. You go fight in it. You want to stay there. 70% of america doesn't.

BTW: Plenty of chickenhawks on plenty of message boards claim to veterans of combat careers. This is cyberspace; you can invent any kind of a fantasy persona you want. Me? I'm a rocket scientist.

Don't worry about someone else following the rules when you can't. USMB staff decisions are not to be questioned in a public forum. Use PM, please.

 

[Waterrescuedude]

There is a coin i got from being on active duty and if you arent smart enough to figure out what it is it says "quiet professionals" Got it from SOCOM

 

[Gunny]

There is a coin i got from being on active duty and if you arent smart enough to figure out what it is it says "quiet professionals" Got it from SOCOM

Navy or Air Force?

 

[Waterrescuedude]

But that coin actually has the army one in the upper left too.

 

[Bern80]

What can be won? How about the defeat of Al Qaeda in Iraq?

You honestly think what we're doing now is the most effective way to fight al queda? You really believe if we leave Iraq we're going to stop fighting terrorism altogether?

How about securing the Iraqi Constitution and Government that 12 million people voted for and America has given up thousands of lives and injuries to obtain?

Many of the Iraqi people don't seem to care about the sacrafices we have made for their freedom. If they don't want to stop squabbling and there isn't much indication that they do, then it's time to get out of the way.

How can we surrender? Follow DCD's above posted suggestion for surrender and thereby let Al Qaeda, and Sunni and Shi'ite murder squads run unopposed in Iraq. Thus giving free reign to those killers who want to rip up the Iraqi Constitution.

That's not surrender much as you want to call it that. You surrender by conceding victory to someone else. Who exactley would that be? Al Queda? We wouldn't we certainly wont be surrendering to them anytime soon. If anything leaving Iraq will allow the U.S. to bring the full force of it's military to bear on on al queda. But instead we're stuck in Iraq to push democracy on a group of people that really don't seem to want it all that bad.

 

[onedomino]

That's not surrender much as you want to call it that. You surrender by conceding victory to someone else. Who exactley would that be? Al Queda? We wouldn't we certainly wont be surrendering to them anytime soon. If anything leaving Iraq will allow the U.S. to bring the full force of it's military to bear on on al queda. But instead we're stuck in Iraq to push democracy on a group of people that really don't seem to want it all that bad.

What I want to call it? Leaving the battlefield to the enemy is surrender. If we run away from Iraq we will be abandoning the battlefield to Al Qaeda and the roving murder squads of Sunni and Shiites. If that is not surrender to the enemy that we have been fighting, then what is? Leaving the battlefield in Iraq will be surrender to those whose stated purpose is the destruction of the Iraqi Constitution.

 

[Bern80]

What I want to call it? Leaving the battlefield to the enemy is surrender. If we run away from Iraq we will be abandoning the battlefield to Al Qaeda and the roving murder squads of Sunni and Shiites. If that is not surrender to the enemy that we have been fighting, then what is? Leaving the battlefield in Iraq will be surrender to those whose stated purpose is the destruction of the Iraqi Constitution.

We can't surrender what isn't ours. the Iraq constitution doesn't belong to teh U.S. or it's military. It belongs to the Iraqis. if they believe in it then tehy should be the one's to defend it.

that and you mischaracterize the word 'battliefield'. We aren't waging a full blown where there in the first place. Ther ISG placed the number of al queda operatin in Iraq at 1300. That should be few enought that the Iraqis can take care of that on their own. there is no them vs. us over there except for the occasional IED set by al queda to specifically hurt our troops. Instead of effectively combatting that we're stuck babysitting.