Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Is al Anbar al Qaeda's high water mark?
The Guardian appears to disagree with the press accounts of American intelligence reports, at least insofar as it sees no safe haven for al Qaeda in western Iraq:
Where once tribal leaders in Anbar and western Iraq welcomed al-Qaida, providing them with safehouses and other logistical support, there is now open war.
From Falluja, where the notoriously fractious Bou Eisa clan have turned against al-Qaida, to the city of Qaim, where it is the Bou Mahal who are pursuing them, they are being being pushed out of their old strongholds in the rural west.
The tribes' courtship by Iraq's prime minister has been oiled by cash gifts and alleged salaries to some sheikhs of up to $5,000 (£2,650) a month. Tribal fighters have also asked for weapons.
It is a battle being driven by deep-rooted social, religious and political considerations. The traditional power of the tribal leaders has been undermined by al-Qaida "emirs". Some sheikhs have also become sickened by al-Qaida attacks aimed at Shias, believing they are not only wrong, but that they will ultimately hurt Sunnis - an issue that apparently came to a head with the bombing of the Golden Shrine in Samarra in February.
Read the whole thing, plus this report by Bill Roggio (via Glenn).
Contrast the Guardian story and Roggio's post with the WaPo's account of a leaked military intelligence report that purported to characterize the security situation in Anbar as "dire." It is dire if you're an Iraqi civilian, in that there is a lot of fighting going on. Strategically, though, the fighting in Anbar is itself a defeat for al Qaeda, which has made a great many enemies even among their erstwhile allies, the tribes of Iraq's Sunni Triangle. Even if al Qaeda has used Iraq as a device to recruit more men and to raise more money, many more Iraqis -- even Iraqis who despise the United States -- have taken up arms against al Qaeda. There is no "haven for terrorists" in the Sunni Triangle. It is hell for them. Indeed, Al Qaeda may have reached its high water mark in al Anbar, and it is there where it may face its most important defeat, the defeat that begins to weaken the credibility of the jihadi ideology.
It is far from clear whether the Bush administration's "war cabinet" predicted that al Qaeda would make a stand in Iraq. If it did, it failed to plan the military campaign and subsequent occupation accordingly. Nevertheless, I have high hopes that history will record a line between our decision to invade Iraq and the discrediting humiliation of al Qaeda, which humiliation is a necessary precondition to victory over the jihadis.
In occupying Iraq, we presented al Qaeda with an irresistable target. The jihadis bragged they would drive us from Mesopotamia, staking their prestige on ultimate victory against the United States. Fortunately, American soldiers were much harder to kill than they expected, and George W. Bush was more stubborn than most of the world believed possible. Having failed to dislodge the United States directly, al Qaeda turned on Arabs whom it saw as supporting the United States, including particularly Shiites in Iraq and the "apostate regimes" in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. These attacks and the resulting chaos achieved al Qaeda's objective of eviscerating support for the United States in the Arab world, but this public relations victory came at a huge cost. Arabs now took up arms against al Qaeda in massive numbers, and al Qaeda's popularity also collapsed everywhere it attacked. More than 40 months into the American project in Iraq, there are a great many more Arabs hunting or betraying al Qaeda than there are fighting against the United States. We have lost some friends in this war, but we have created millions of enemies of our enemy. In a counterinsurgency, that is strategic progress.
MORE: See also John Hinderaker's post discussing al Qaeda's interoffice memos.
8 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Oct 03, 12:43:00 AM:
AQ ain't gonna get'em any of that black gold cash. They smartened up and realized where their futures really lay.
By 
Gary Rosen, at
Tue Oct 03, 03:28:00 AM:
Does this mean that even the Guardian is more objective than the WaPo and NYT?
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Oct 03, 06:29:00 AM:
Gary,
Not a chance.
By skipsailing, at
Tue Oct 03, 09:55:00 AM:
this is interesting. Here's the way it looks to me:
OBL publishes a litany of complaints about america including the fact that there are infidel soldiers in proximity to Mekkah and other sites "sacred" to Islam.
He launches an attack against us and we respond with more soldiers even closer to "sacred" sites.
OBL then launches a campaign against us in Iraq by basically exhorting young foolish muslim men to run headlong onto our bayonets.
I have no idea if that was the plan, and I don't think anybody truly does know if that was the plan. but it is the way its working out.
Wars are won on offense and we tend to admire those generals and political leaders who responded to grave threat with offensive action.
Iraq is the central front now and Al Q is losing badly. the have virtually no military capability and they've managed to lose the hearts and minds battle as well.
Iraq will slide off the front page in America the day after the election. I note that while Ramadi is where the fighting is, virtually no news emerges from that city. there are far more fire fights, air strikes, arrests and kills in that city than in B-dad yet we hear almost nothing.
This tells me that the enemy has lost the ability to capture the short attention span of the Americans. That is bad for them because once we "move on" Al Q will be incapable of using our political system to wrangle a victory.
By , at
Tue Oct 03, 11:53:00 AM:
From: Bin Laden to Zarqawi: We're Not Doing So Well! REF - http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015439.php
"Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest, with God’s permission."
I posted this earlier, but thought it applies here:
Bin Laden believes that jihad in Afghanistan brought down the Soviet Union not competition with the U.S. The Russians fought ten years in Afghanistan, spent billions and right after they withdrew from Afghanistan the Soviet Union disintegrated. Bin Laden believes that if he can spend enough of our national treasure and cause enough political dissent in the US that we also will collapse, or at least lose the will to fight. This strategic initiative is now in play on two fronts: Afghanistan and Iraq. He would love to expand this strategy to an Iran and Venezuela front. He engages us with a few young hot-heads and we spend billions. This strategy works. Did we learn nothing from the Russians and Vietnam?
Is there a defense against this strategy?
By skipsailing, at
Tue Oct 03, 01:01:00 PM:
As I read your post Mr Davies it seems that your central thesis is that the threat we face is based on OBL alone.
If it were that simple then I believe your concern would be well founded. but it seems to me that we face an amalgam of threats all centered on Islam and the arab/muslim culture.
Suppose were were to overrun waziristan (no doubt the throbbing heart of our planet!) and kill every Al Q biggie we found. Would that eliminate the threat posed by a nuclear armed Iran? Would that bring a halt to the hatred being taught by saudi funded Wahabbists? Would Hamas and Heabullah lay down their AK's?
Sadly, no. What the Islamic thugs are attempting is a classic insurgency. Their hope is to bleed civilization at an unsustainable rate in the hopes that we'll lose our nerve and "surrender" to them.
As the article posted by our gracious host indicates, even this strategy is stumbling because they've lost the support of the locals, which is a critical need for insurgents.
their next best hope is for a Democrat to be elected to the white house on a cut and run platform. If the next president appears to be more of the same as our currrent president they will have few options for sustaining thier warmaking.
By , at
Tue Oct 03, 02:59:00 PM:
Skipsailing I just read your blog: http://helmsalee.blogspot.com/2006/09/cost-of-war.html
Which addresses many of my concerns... As a Vietnam Veteran I witnessed our country lose the will to fight. I personally know the impact the “cut and run” strategy is having on our service men and women. God help us if we forget 9/11 and retreat. How many more 9/11 events will it take to convince us that this is a war to the death, and that we fight people who love death more than life.
By skipsailing, at
Tue Oct 03, 04:13:00 PM:
Yes, losing the will to fight while we still have a force in the field is simply wrong. That's the lesson of viet Nam. It's a tough position though, especially in this arena where we're dealing with an insurgency and no regular army is opposing us.
thank you for reading my blog. so far its been me and now you! Two readers, hey, I'll be famous one day!
