NIE Report: Victory in Iraq would curb spread of Jihadism

[Divinus Arma]

The mainstream media nd the Democrats are having a party with this:

The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.

But yet the Media is convienently ignoring this:

Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

Leaked NIE Report

Why is this important? And why a new thread? Because it is important to recognize that Iraq is an integral part of the War against Terrorism.

We in the West have chosen the battleground, rather than allowing the terrorists to choose the battleground.

And when we win in Iraq and bring stability and prosperity to the country, the Jihadists will face a great setback.

Does anybody remember this:

Pentagon: Bin Laden deputy complains about money, Iraq tactics
U.S. says it obtained intercepted letter
From Jamie McIntyre
CNN

Friday, October 7, 2005; Posted: 2:50 a.m. EDT (06:50 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An intercepted letter from Osama bin Laden's deputy to the al Qaeda leader in Iraq complains that the terrorist network is short of cash and faces defeat in Afghanistan, a Pentagon spokesman says.

The United States obtained a recent letter that appears to be from Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2 figure, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, outlining both the strategy and concerns of the terrorist network, said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.

In the letter, al-Zawahiri warns that some of the tactics currently employed by the insurgency, including the slaughtering of hostages and the suicide bombings of Muslim civilians, may risk alienating the "Muslim masses," Whitman said Thursday.

Reading from a summary of the letter, Whitman said al-Zawahiri concedes that al Qaeda has lost many key leaders, is resigned to defeat in Afghanistan, and that its lines of communication and funding sources have been seriously disrupted. Al-Zawahiri includes a plea for financial support, indicating he is strapped for money, Whitman said.

And this is interesting:

As War Over Leak Grips Washington, Al Qaeda Quails

By ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
September 27, 2006

WASHINGTON — On a day when much of the capital's attention was focused on leaked excerpts of an intelligence estimate report that suggested the Iraq war was creating more jihadists, the military quietly released an intercepted letter from Al Qaeda complaining that the terrorist organization was losing ground in Iraq.

The letter, found in the headquarters of Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, after he was killed on June 7, was sent to Zarqawi by a senior Al Qaeda leader who signs his name simply "Atiyah." He complains that Al Qaeda is weak both in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and in Iraq.

http://www.nysun.com/article/40461

It is clear that the NIE leak was a timed political hitjob by the Democratic leadership which failed to note the breadth of the report and the status of Iraq as integral to the War on Terror.

Clearly: victory in Iraq is absolutely essential to broader success in the Global War against Terrorism. This is something the Democrats deny, avoid, and refute whenever possible. Iraq is the central battelfield. And it is better that it occurs in Iraq and involving our military than here on Western soil involving our civilians. This is a war gentleman. We can not go back to sleep and pursue a law enforcement strategy against terrorists as the Democrats would do again.

Show courage and resolution. Do not make the error of leaders past with a policy of appeasement.

[Papewaio]

Now that we are there we have to finish the job.

But wouldn't it have been better to resolve Afghanistan before going into Iraq if at all. Shouldn't have Osama stayed as the number one priority rather then diverting resources to another conflict.

The intelligence community has shown that they don't have that much information.

911 and WMD in Iraq both show that the intelligence agencies educated guesses are more on the guess side of the divide.

So I say increase the feet on the ground in Iraq and the Ghan. And put Osama back on first priority. Don't bomb caves where you think he might be and hence he may be buried under half a mile of rubble. Go in and attempt to capture his skanky butt and put him in a tabloid wearing only his y-fronts like Iraqs strongman.

[Divinus Arma]

Now that we are there we have to finish the job.

Agreed. It is a shame that insane left elements like Sheehan have infected the Democratic party and made the party leadership blind to necessary course of action.

But wouldn't it have been better to resolve Afghanistan before going into Iraq if at all.

I agree with this statement for the most part. U.S. intelligence was flawed, but not manipulated. And these flaws led to premature action in Iraq. However, it would actually have been a stroke of genius to invade Iraq no matter what simply because it has become the focal point for the GWOT. So long as we continue and win. If we fail, then we will suffer Isalmofascism for a hundred years.

Shouldn't have Osama stayed as the number one priority rather then diverting resources to another conflict.

No. Al Qaeda is a global decentralized organization. Like the Hydra, it has many heads capable of violent bloodshed. If Osama were to die as a martyr, he may become greater in death than in life. His legend and myth will inspire others to follow his lead, just as the deaths of suicide bombers are applauded and followed as examples in Palestine. Osama must die a pathetic and unimportant death- sick and isolated as a sign of his powerlessness and his lack of favor in the eyes of Allah.

The intelligence community has shown that they don't have that much information.

About who or what? Can you clarify?

911 and WMD in Iraq both show that the intelligence agencies educated guesses are more on the guess side of the divide.

During the Clinton years, the Democratic leadership made the ill-fated decision to reduce human intelligence in the favor of technological intelligence gathering. Clinton had a large role to play in dismantling the cold war era human intel capabilities. The lessons of our subdued conflict with the Soviets would have served us well today, had we not abandoned them. Clinton should have continued reliance upon human intelligence and complimented this with the rapidly growing tecno-intel capability.

So I say increase the feet on the ground in Iraq and the Ghan.

Agree. We will be happy to have more fine Aussies by our side.

And put Osama back on first priority.

Disgaree. For reasons stated above.

Don't bomb caves where you think he might be and hence he may be buried under half a mile of rubble. Go in and attempt to capture his skanky butt and put him in a tabloid wearing only his y-fronts like Iraqs strongman.

That would certainly be ideal. However, it is better to let him fester and die a pig's death than to allow him the death of a heroic martyr. Capturing Osama would be tremendously important for propoganda reasons.

[Papewaio]

"The intelligence community has shown that they don't have that much information.

About who or what? Can you clarify?"

End results. They didn't have enough information to stop 911 and they were off the mark about the number of WMD (and I would say the ability to launch a missile to the UK in 30 minutes). These are two glaring cases. The international intelligence agency have also missed the likes of the London bombers while capturing non-terrorists.

It is unfortunate that a terrorist cell only needs to be successful once out of a hundred attempts while an intelligence organistation needs to be successful almost one hundred percent of the time.

Anyhow the point is that I would take any report by intelligence agencies with a grain of salt. Their track record indicates that they get it wrong to much. So another item to add would be more people to interpret data rather then just going 'Oh look we are getting more data traffic, it's either a terrorist cell or Janet Jackson had another bra malfunction."

[Tribesman]

We in the West have chosen the battleground, rather than allowing the terrorists to choose the battleground.

And when we win in Iraq and bring stability and prosperity to the country, the Jihadists will face a great setback.

Wow , the west had a choice, and it chose Iraq , what muppet chose that ?

Oh and change that second bit to "if" Divinus .
If we win in Iraq and bring stability and prosperity.......oh sorry , that should have been a very big IF .

[Pannonian]

Clearly: victory in Iraq is absolutely essential to broader success in the Global War against Terrorism.

There's a phrase that comes to mind.

If your auntie had balls, she'd be your uncle.

This is something the Democrats deny, avoid, and refute whenever possible. Iraq is the central battelfield. And it is better that it occurs in Iraq and involving our military than here on Western soil involving our civilians.

We've been hit here in London. The perpetrators explicitly said our involvement in Iraq was why they took the action they did. If you've read the Blair Iraq interview I've linked to on numerous occasions, you'll know we've warned about precisely this even before the war. Go and read it.

This is a war gentleman. We can not go back to sleep and pursue a law enforcement strategy against terrorists as the Democrats would do again.

Show courage and resolution. Do not make the error of leaders past with a policy of appeasement.

There's that WW2 rhetoric again. It doesn't work DA, because we know this ain't WW2. We don't agree with the aims of those terrorists. But neither do we want to invade other countries. If you want to fight the terrorists in Iraq, that's your chosen problem, not ours. We'll fight them in Afghanistan, where they originally were, and at home, where they've sprung up.

[Ironside]

I'm still curious how you DA is expecting to make the Republican party abandon Bush's strategy of:
"Were doing fine, stay on course". And "I can't hear you nananannananannanannanana, you traitorous freedom-hating political hack".

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil and everything will be just fine.

[Sir Moody]

id like to know how they can produce this statment? its pure guess work of the worst kind we have no idea what victory (if attainable) in iraq will have on the Terrorists - i cant see it having any tbh

[Spetulhu]

I'm still curious how you DA is expecting to make the Republican party abandon Bush's strategy of:
"Were doing fine, stay on course". And "I can't hear you nananannananannanannanana, you traitorous freedom-hating political hack".

When the Bush administration mishandles the war and refuses to get in gear or give up it's not their fault. They don't need to abandon the stupid strategy as long as they can blame it on the Democrats.

[ezrider]

I don't mean to be snooty but wheres that picture of the flying pigs I saw last week???

[yesdachi]

Two steps forward and one step back is still one step forward. I am disappointed with the way things are being done and have been done in Iraq, but I am encouraged by the progress that has been made, those that are not are just having a difficult time facing the truth that there is progress being made. Your glass can be half full too if you just wipe the “I hate Bush” film off your glasses.

[ezrider]

i don't hate bush.
I just think victory in Iraq is a very vague concept. To win you need victory conditions, right? I would like to know what the victory conditions are. Then I measure progress more clearly. If I saw that progress (in relation to goals) was being made then I would have a optimistic glass as well ;-)

[Ice]

I disagree that we should have gone into Iraq at all. If we could have given half the resources we gave Iraq to Afganistan, the country would be in much better shape, and the whole idea that DA just explained could have been shown in Afganistan. I do agree it is a reasonable concept, but I just think it could have been achieved without invading Iraq. Not that I don't like Saddam Hussien, I just think the money, lives, and alliances saved could have been put to better use.

In reality though, we did invade Iraq, so our best strategy would be to stay and finish the job. I think we will win. We are superior in technology, finance, and man power. If the people of our country can stomach a few thousand more casualities of war, we will obtain victory.

[Tribesman]

Two steps forward and one step back is still one step forward.

Yep , Bush gave a nice speech the other week , detailing the steps forward being taken because of his global war on terror .
He cited a really good example , upcoming elections in Algeria
Did he forget who won the last election in Algeria , and who is predicted to win again this time ...what a muppet .
Unless of course he is thinking that if the military decide that they are going to reject the vote and start another round of a very very nasty war (actually it makes Afghanistan and Iraq combined look like a kiddies teaparty of a war) it will be a step forward .

[Ironside]

i don't hate bush.
I just think victory in Iraq is a very vague concept. To win you need victory conditions, right? I would like to know what the victory conditions are. Then I measure progress more clearly. If I saw that progress (in relation to goals) was being made then I would have a optimistic glass as well ;-)

It's something about the lines of one Iraq (no fractionation), that is stable with a democratic elected leader (that is an ally to the US).

In reality though, we did invade Iraq, so our best strategy would be to stay and finish the job. I think we will win. We are superior in technology, finance, and man power. If the people of our country can stomach a few thousand more casualities of war, we will obtain victory.

Obtain yeah, but maintain it within your stated goals? A US puppet ruling with an iron fist would be quite ironic, especially if it ends up with Barbara Bush starting Iraqi war III to remove him.

[Pannonian]

(Victory is) something about the lines of one Iraq (no fractionation), that is stable with a democratic elected leader (that is an ally to the US).

1. A stable Iraq.
2. A democratically elected government.
3. An Iraq friendly to the US.

Pick 2 out of 3.

Obtain yeah, but maintain it within your stated goals? A US puppet ruling with an iron fist would be quite ironic, especially if it ends up with Barbara Bush starting Iraqi war III to remove him.

Many of us were predicting either another pro-western puppet dictator or an anarchy before all this started.

[Ice]

It's something about the lines of one Iraq (no fractionation), that is stable with a democratic elected leader (that is an ally to the US).



Obtain yeah, but maintain it within your stated goals? A US puppet ruling with an iron fist would be quite ironic, especially if it ends up with Barbara Bush starting Iraqi war III to remove him.

Yes, it's possible. Like I said though, a lot more has to be done.

[Major Robert Dump]

While I certainly agree that vicotry would curb jihadism, and I certainly agree that we must win this war, there is one thing that upsets me about this "we're fighting them over there not over here" mentality:

The people of Iraq did not ask for this. We took their country from bad to worse with a poorly planned invasion and an incompetent rebuilding strategy. Every time an Iraqi dies, be it at the hands of the coalition, the insurgents or sectarian death squads, we run the risk of losing a few more fence sitters to the side of the badguys. Yet this pompous idea of "better to trash someone elses country than risk a hypothetical trashing of our own" is the LAST thing we need to be trumping to the country we are trying to save. It really does make me sick.

Aside from being one of the "reasons" for the war that didn't start regularly appearing until some of the other "reasons" weren't washing with the public, its a line of reasoning that makes me ashamed of my fellow citizens sometimes; what an incredible display of greed and detachment from humanity

I know, I know: countries don't have friends, they have interests, right? If we're on the top, better to stay there at all costs, right? America first, right?

The fact is, we have to win this war. With reasons for war like the one stated above, history would judge us very, very poorly were we to lose.

[Cha]

I agree that the job of rebuilding Iraq and making the country back into a safer place should be done before leaving. Now that no WMDs are found in Iraq, that leaves us with regime change. Leaving at this moment wouldn't be right after the mistake that has been done.

What surprises me is that there are very little news about terrorists getting caught. I know that the leaders have been caught, but I rarely see the people who work under them getting caught. There are many videos of hostages but the abductors never get caught. Imagine if this was in America or in Britain. I think terrorism (of a kind that didn't exist in Iraq before the war) wouldn't be as rampant as they are now if terrorists didn't feel that they could get away with what they are doing. After the bombings in America and Britain, investigators identified the terrorists quickly (albeit it would be nice if they could do that before the bombings, which is difficult to do). I don't know why we don't see any of this in Iraq.

Maybe there are investigators in Iraq, and the terrorists do get caught but don't appear in the news. I know that there are footages of car bombings, which could be used as clues to find anyone else involved in it. If there were more surveillance cameras in Iraq like there are in America or Britain, I think identifying the terrorists would be easier. Luckily, there are Iraqis who have reported possible terrorist hideouts in their area.

[yesdachi]

Cha, there is lots of things we should see but don’t from the mainstream media. Kind of disappointing but completely predictable.

[Ironside]

Yes, it's possible. Like I said though, a lot more has to be done.

The problem is that USA's policies so so horrendously locked. The Iraqi war has never been seen as a pure war on terror, but more as an extreme extension of US politics and that form day 1.

Bush for example has to either admit that he was wrong and try to make a severe re-direction or pray for a miracle. And he's currently prying (aka personal pride is bigger than victory).
And this extends to both parties too, most members there are more interested in the votes than to say mission acomplished and be right. And so are most of the public.

[GoreBag]

I don't think 'winning' in Iraq will alleviate any terrorist threat.

[yesdachi]

I don't think 'winning' in Iraq will alleviate any terrorist threat.

To who? It has already eliminated some terrorist threats.

[Pannonian]

To who? It has already eliminated some terrorist threats.

Pity your poor shafted allies who are at greatly increased risk thanks to our involvement in Iraq. We should pull an FDR and charge the US for our services in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Xiahou]

Anyone see the report where the leader of al-qaeda in Iraq admits that over 4000 foreign fighters have been killed in Iraq? He then went on to call for more recruits, saying that American bases in Iraq would be a good place for scientists to further their knowledge by testing dirty bombs and biological weapons.

[Dâriûsh]

Anyone see the report where the leader of al-qaeda in Iraq admits that over 4000 foreign fighters have been killed in Iraq? He then went on to call for more recruits, saying that American bases in Iraq would be a good place for scientists to further their knowledge by testing dirty bombs and biological weapons.

Golly. His infinite concern for the well-being of the native Iraqis is truly heartening.

[Redleg]

Pity your poor shafted allies who are at greatly increased risk thanks to our involvement in Iraq. We should pull an FDR and charge the US for our services in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You might want to look into that. You might just surprise yourself. Not to long ago to convince the British to buy a certain weapon system the United States agreed to buy a weapon system from the UK.

So its not as far fetched as you might think

[Pannonian]

You might want to look into that. You might just surprise yourself. Not to long ago to convince the British to buy a certain weapon system the United States agreed to buy a weapon system from the UK.

So its not as far fetched as you might think

Are you saying your government is paying us for committing our troops? Can you enlighten me further?

[BigTex]

You might want to look into that. You might just surprise yourself. Not to long ago to convince the British to buy a certain weapon system the United States agreed to buy a weapon system from the UK.

So its not as far fetched as you might think

Its not far fetched but it is unlikely. Most of the allies contribute to few troops to make it worth it. Only the UK maybe the Ausie's have a large enough presence to make it an idea, a very unlikely to ever happen idea but its still there.
_______________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.

BigTex

Ridicolus
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb

[Divinus Arma]

Pity your poor shafted allies who are at greatly increased risk thanks to our involvement in Iraq. We should pull an FDR and charge the US for our services in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Reminds me of Monty Pthon and the Holy Grail.

"Run Away! Run Away!"