Did we capture an Iraqi Al Qaeda leader that may actually count for a change?

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
This thread brought to you as a public service announcement by ProfJohn

You know this capture must be different because they aren?t calling this guy the ?number two guy? in Iraq.

The details of the media operation are very interesting. It does seem that AQ is trying to ?spin? the story in Iraq to suit their needs.

So if what this guy says is true does that mean that the Sunni insurgency is not as strong as we believe? Or perhaps the ?civil war? is not really a civil war, but just AQ trying to make it look that way? hmmmmm

Newsweek
In the past couple of years, the U.S. military has announced the killing or capture of so many senior Al Qaeda-linked emirs and sheiks in Iraq, without any significant drop in the violence attributed to the group, that it's hard to know when to take notice. Syndicated cartoonist Mike Luckovich summed this up in a pointed cartoon showing an American military commander pointing to an Al Qaeda organizational chart where all the branches and offshoots are labeled "No. 2." So was today?s announcement of the capture of yet another senior Al Qaeda in Iraq operative actually one that matters? Hard to say. According to Gen. Kevin Bergner, a Coalition military spokesman, Khalid Abdul Fatah Daud Mahmud Al Mashadani, a.k.a. Abu Shahed, was taken prisoner in a July 4 raid in the northern city of Mosul. Bergner describes Mashadani as a "media emir" for Al Qaeda in Iraq (often referred to as AQI by the U.S. military) and also the most senior Iraqi in the group. More important, Bergner claimed Mashadani served as "an intermediary between AQI leader [Abu Ayoub] al-Masri, Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri." In other words, Mashadani was a key link between Al Qaeda in Iraq and Al Qaeda central.


Then there was an odd twist. Bergner said Mashadani had created a "virtual organization in cyberspace called the Islamic State of Iraq." Last fall, announcements began appearing on jihadi Web sites announcing the creation of an umbrella group of Sunni insurgents, including AQI, called the Islamic State of Iraq. The group has taken credit for a number of kidnappings and brutal attacks since that time, including the bombing of the Iraqi Parliament last spring and the bombing of the Mansour hotel last month. It claimed Diyala province as its emirate and even announced the formation of a cabinet with 10 ministers (including a minister for agriculture and fisheries). According to Bergner, the whole thing was a sham. Mashadani has apparently confessed that AQI used the name "Islamic State of Iraq" as a front. "The Islamic State of Iraq is a 'front organization' that masks the foreign influence and leadership within in an attempt to put an Iraqi face on the leadership of Al Qaeda in Iraq," Bergner said.


It got weirder. In various Internet postings, the Islamic State of Iraq has claimed their emir is an Iraqi named Abu Omar al Baghdadi. In recent months, Iraqi security officials have announced the death or capture of Baghdadi on more than one occasion. Only one problem: Baghdadi doesn't exist, according to Bergner. Mashadani apparently confessed that Baghdadi is not a real person. The voice messages occasionally posted on the net under Baghdadi's name were actually done by an Iraqi "actor" named Abu Abdullah al Naima. As if these details weren't muddled enough, Bergner offered this explanation about the identity of Baghdadi and his link to Abu Ayoub al-Masri, the leader of AQI: "To make al-Baghdadi appear credible, al-Masri swore allegiance to Baghdadi and pledged to obey him, which was essentially swearing allegiance to himself, since he knew that Baghdadi was fictitious and a creation of his own." Huh?


Following Bergner's narrative, this tidbit does fit in, but it's impossible to say who's playing whom. Was Mashadani telling the truth during his interrogation? Or is this another part of the elaborate deception scheme? Mashadani's confession does conveniently sync the message coming from U.S. military commanders in Baghdad with the message coming from the White House: that Al Qaeda in Iraq is directly linked to Al Qaeda central. But in the briefing today, Bergner said he couldn't point to any specific attacks that could be traced directly to decisions passed down from Al Qaeda central. The overall message was also mixed. Bergner hammered home the point that Al Qaeda in Iraq is run by foreigners, not Iraqis, but did concede "the rank and file [of AQI] are largely Iraqi." And, while Baghdadi may not have been a real person, another senior U.S. military official, Real Adm. Greg Smith, said the rest of the cabinet of the Islamic State of Iraq (presumably including the agriculture and fisheries minister) are real jihadis. So is it a "virtual organization"? The next captured Al Qaeda leader may have the answers.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The real question is what part of the total problem in Iraq is Al-Quida anyway? I tend to say about 5% but I have seen estimates as high as 15%. For home consumption, GWB&co. needs the myth that we are fighting international terrorism in Iraq, when in fact we are contending with a problem 100% of our own making. After all, there was no Al-Quida in Iraq before we invaded, and no insurgency either.

The other myth is that there can be much of any central command in control to the Iraqi insurgencies when you have what amounts to a huge number of separate insurgencies each headed by some local poohbah who is setting up their own little fiefdom. Granted that a group like Al-Quida can and has picked out high value targets sure to put a bee under everyone bonnet, but after that things operate more by autopilot.

And if Al-Quida 100% left Iraq, we would be faced with the same set of problems---but GWB would suddenly have no one to blame but himself. Insurgencies are well studied military problems and have been military problems long before Al-Quida as an organization was born. What is happening now was quite predictable and in fact was predicted by Shinseki.
As we know, Rummy won that battle and Shinseki was vanquished. But we all have to wonder what would have happened if we had a smarter Sec of Defense.

But the greatest damage this we are fighting Al-Quida in Iraq myth does is leave the USA powerless and ineffective. How can we apply logic to fight or win a war when we don't even know what the root causes of what you are fighting?
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
The real question is what part of the total problem in Iraq is Al-Quida anyway? I tend to say about 5% but I have seen estimates as high as 15%. For home consumption, GWB&co. needs the myth that we are fighting international terrorism in Iraq, when in fact we are contending with a problem 100% of our own making. After all, there was no Al-Quida in Iraq before we invaded, and no insurgency either.

The other myth is that there can be much of any central command in control to the Iraqi insurgencies when you have what amounts to a huge number of separate insurgencies each headed by some local poohbah who is setting up their own little fiefdom. Granted that a group like Al-Quida can and has picked out high value targets sure to put a bee under everyone bonnet, but after that things operate more by autopilot.

And if Al-Quida 100% left Iraq, we would be faced with the same set of problems---but GWB would suddenly have no one to blame but himself. Insurgencies are well studied military problems and have been military problems long before Al-Quida as an organization was born. What is happening now was quite predictable and in fact was predicted by Shinseki.
As we know, Rummy won that battle and Shinseki was vanquished. But we all have to wonder what would have happened if we had a smarter Sec of Defense.

But the greatest damage this we are fighting Al-Quida in Iraq myth does is leave the USA powerless and ineffective. How can we apply logic to fight or win a war when we don't even know what the root causes of what you are fighting?

I agree. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded. But they're there now, so we should probably pull out and gas any cities with links to Al Qaeda.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Well Nebor,

I have a sure fire way to cure cancer you are sure to like---just kill anyone with cancer and the cancer is cured---works every time. killing is easy---poison gas, bullets, nukes, swords, or knives.

But curing cancer without killing the patient is evidently a concept beyond you---and for us lefties, GWB&co. is the rapidly metastasizing cancer to be cured.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91

It won't affect anything unless they can find a way to wrangle intel out of the guy, perhaps with Medieval torture methods. If they could get the locations of all hideouts and then exterminate the Al Qaeda within it might help some. Regardless, a new leader will spring up.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Another "high-profile" arrest? How many have we had in 6 years? Besides, he was caught 2 weeks ago and the administration is having political problems this week. Coincidence on his announcement?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,303
6,641
126
Iraq must me renamed Alquaedaville. Al Quaeda Al Quaeda Al Quaeda 9/11 9/11 9/11 Terror Terror Terror.
 

tomywishbone

Golden Member
Oct 24, 2006
1,401
0
0
Was the latest leader captured, the 10-of-diamonds or the 7-of-spades? Whatever happened to the 5-of-hearts, that guy scared me.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
I question any existence of Al-Q in Iraq, at least anything having to do with the organization that Osama BL runs

Sounds better though, on the news and in the papers when we say we are fighting Al-Q in Iraq - attempt is it justify being there and remind people of 9/11

 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well Nebor,

I have a sure fire way to cure cancer you are sure to like---just kill anyone with cancer and the cancer is cured---works every time. killing is easy---poison gas, bullets, nukes, swords, or knives.

But curing cancer without killing the patient is evidently a concept beyond you---and for us lefties, GWB&co. is the rapidly metastasizing cancer to be cured.

The entire ME is a tumor. The only part that needs to be "saved" is Israel, from those surrounding her.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
13,296
10,694
136
So we caught the 2nd(???) in command of at most 10% of the problem in Iraq. Great. Now how about we go after the top guys of 100% of the real problem in mountains of Pakistan?
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,582
80
91
www.bing.com
Its hard to say the exact % of AQ in Iraq, but the number of foriegn insurgents killed/captured has been hovering around 95% for a few years now. Any locals that had beef with the US died a long time ago. Of the locals that are currently killed/captured, you could probably count the ones that were acting criminally, but not neccesarily anti-CF, and reduce the % of local insurgents to about zero.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,249
9,438
136
Originally posted by: NeoV
I question any existence of Al-Q in Iraq, at least anything having to do with the organization that Osama BL runs

Sounds better though, on the news and in the papers when we say we are fighting Al-Q in Iraq - attempt is it justify being there and remind people of 9/11

Cause it's impossible for the Islamists around the Middle East to travel to Iraq and fight there? Guess you'll ignore all the military reports then, who are we to believe, the daily kos?
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,225
664
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well Nebor,

I have a sure fire way to cure cancer you are sure to like---just kill anyone with cancer and the cancer is cured---works every time. killing is easy---poison gas, bullets, nukes, swords, or knives.

But curing cancer without killing the patient is evidently a concept beyond you---and for us lefties, GWB&co. is the rapidly metastasizing cancer to be cured.

The entire ME is a tumor. The only part that needs to be "saved" is Israel, from those surrounding her.

Why the hell haven't you been banned yet?
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
13,296
10,694
136
Originally posted by: Train
Its hard to say the exact % of AQ in Iraq, but the number of foriegn insurgents killed/captured has been hovering around 95% for a few years now. Any locals that had beef with the US died a long time ago. Of the locals that are currently killed/captured, you could probably count the ones that were acting criminally, but not neccesarily anti-CF, and reduce the % of local insurgents to about zero.

I think you've got your %'s backwards. Most of the estimates from even the pentagon on % of foreign fighters is ~5%.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This thread brought to you as yet another in an infinite string of posts whoring for the Bush administration by ProfJohn

Fixed it for ya. :cool:
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
PJ - you still don't get it - it doesnt matter if you kill even Osama we're in the midst of a Islamic Revival not unlike the past....you can kill hundreds of 'leaders' but the message never changes and recruits virtually endless - kill until the entire world is Dar Islam.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: Nebor

The entire ME is a tumor. The only part that needs to be "saved" is Israel, from those surrounding her.

The problem is that we allowed savages to have oil wealth because the West succumbed to altruism. "They live there, so they have a claim to it."

However, the backwards Muslim philosophy, left to its own devices, would have never allowed the Arabs to discover the oil beneath the surface of the sands, nor discover any ways to transform it into gasoline, nor invent any vehicles that could use it.

We would have been better off had we refused to allow them to nationalize the oil in the first place and just allowed the oil companies to claim it as theirs. The West should have just left the Muslim world alone, with all that entails--alone--no transfer of technology, etc.