Fallujah falls to Al Qaeda

[Drako]

Meh,

Let the Suadis (Sunnis) and Iranians (Shiites) fight for it.

 

[Nebor]

Yes, but he also knows that he's only getting paid by Putin while there is an unrest for him to suppress, so it's not in his interest to eliminate it.

That's not normally how such deals work (that would misalign incentives,) but if you have some information that says otherwise, please share.

 

[zinfamous]

Glad to see we did our part. Clearly, Iraq was without adequate representation of Al Qaeda prior to our meddling. Now they have Al Qaeda! exactly what we wanted, right?

 

[zinfamous]

Who has taken over Fallujah?

Who was responsible for 9/11/2001?

Yes, dumb fuck.

wait...are you honestly, this many years later, professing to be this daft?

wow

 

[compuwiz1]

wait...are you honestly, this many years later, professing to be this daft?

wow

Wait....are you seriously denying that Al Qaeda was behind Fallujah and 9/11? That was my point.

 

[Jhhnn]

The goal isn't to kill everyone, it's to demoralize and destroy their will to fight. When you're dealing with relatively uncivilized people, you can't do that by turning off their internet and canceling American Idol. You have to make resisting hurt them enormously. Look at how the Russians handled Chechnya. They put hand selected strong men in positions of power throughout the republic, and made it clear that opposition to the authorities would bring harsh consequences. If a man was found to be a terrorist, his entire extended family would be killed, the man who sells him bread would be killed, his imam would be killed, etc. Such a system would be simple and effective implemented in Afghanistan by squads of soldiers in each village. Over a period of 15-20 years, and with aggressive indoctrination of the youth, that's how you change a culture, and crush an insurgency.

None of which the American public supports or even tolerates, so it's pointless to approach elective warfare as if such were possible for our military.

 

[theeedude]

That's not normally how such deals work (that would misalign incentives,) but if you have some information that says otherwise, please share.

That's exactly how those deals work, and incentives are aligned. It's no different from drug companies who want to sell treatments for chronic conditions instead of cures. Kadyrov doesn't want to eliminate the threat of Chechen extremism and separatism completely, because it would make him dispensable. He wants to keep it dormant and get paid for it.

 

[zinfamous]

Wait....are you seriously denying that Al Qaeda was behind Fallujah and 9/11? That was my point.

you were equating pre-invasion Iraq with Al Qaeda. the point of the thread, from the string of comments that you replied to with this post, was the distortions used to link Al Qaeda with the invasion of Iraq.

You doubled up with the previous administration's attempt to use chains of unrelated evidence to brainwash people in connecting 9/11 with Iraq.

that is the thrust of your post, considering what you were responding to.

The argument by others, being, that without the US invading Iraq, Al Qaeda would never have had a presence in Iraq. The USA is singly responsible for allowing them a foothold within a country where they had not before maintained a presence.

 

[IGBT]

yet another obama foreign policy failure.

 

[HomerJS]

yet another Obama foreign policy failure.

Of course it is. In a country which had very little Al Qaeda presence before we invaded and then they came flooding in? Costing the lives over 5000 US soldiers and started over a lie?

Yeah I guess its Obamas fault!

 

[werepossum]

None of which the American public supports or even tolerates, so it's pointless to approach elective warfare as if such were possible for our military.

That was kind of his point, that people studying COIN are constrained by considerations which make COIN unworkable.

yet another obama foreign policy failure.

Hard to see how. Obama totally followed Bush's time table, which in turn was driven by the Iraqi government's refusal to extend our troops' exemption from Iraqi jurisdiction. Unless you think he should have kept combat troops fighting under threat of murder charges or overthrown the government he just guided into being, it's hard to see how Obama bears any blame here.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Who has taken over Fallujah?

Who was responsible for 9/11/2001?

Yes, dumb fuck.

Wait just a minute while I catch my breath.

Ok, humour the 'dumb fuck' for a second and tell me, just who it is that you think was behind 9/11?

[edit] ok, never mind. I don't think I care to even try and follow your logic here.

 

[brycejones]

yet another obama foreign policy failure.

What a brilliant and insightful statement with lots of supporting evidence provided.

Troll, troll, troll your boat

 

[Jhhnn]

None of which the American public supports or even tolerates, so it's pointless to approach elective warfare as if such were possible for our military.

That was kind of his point, that people studying COIN are constrained by considerations which make COIN unworkable.

Those constraints are known going in to any conflict. Traditional American values prevent us from acting like the Gestapo for decades on end. The Bush Admin managed to ding those values, not destroy them

Hard to see how. Obama totally followed Bush's time table, which in turn was driven by the Iraqi government's refusal to extend our troops' exemption from Iraqi jurisdiction. Unless you think he should have kept combat troops fighting under threat of murder charges or overthrown the government he just guided into being, it's hard to see how Obama bears any blame here.

Agreed. The Iraqis had out-maneuvered the Bush Admin before Obama was elected.

Remember back when one of the Neocon spiels was that we'd draw Al Q into Iraq so we could fight over there instead of over here?

The only way to do that was to weaken Iraq, provide an opening. Having accomplished that, we now leave Iraqis to deal with it rather that us dealing with it. Slick, huh?

It also provides a safety valve for our Saudi friends to export Jihad rather than suffer from it themselves. That's always been part of the price of the Royals' alliance with the Wahhabis. The religious police keep everybody in line in the Kingdom of Divine Right at the same time, using the ancient method of Le Chop for emphasis.

Our pals.

It's good for the Israelis, too. An Iraq paralyzed & hobbled by internal conflicts is very much a reduced threat & an impotent rival. That's the same wrt Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, and, currently under siege, Syria. They won't hesitate to have the Mossad do what they can to maintain the uproar, given that we don't seem to mind much.

More pals.

It's Michael Ledeen's "Creative Destruction" writ large in human blood.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The Iraqis had out-maneuvered the Bush Admin before Obama was elected.

How so?

 

[Jhhnn]

How so?

Easy. The Bush Admin didn't negotiate the terms under which US troops remaining in Iraq would stay when they negotiated the date of withdrawal. As events unfolded, Iraqis made the terms impossible, likely their intent all along.

Unless he was willing to denounce the deal & the Iraqi govt, Obama was stuck with complete troop withdrawal.

But it's all Obama's fault, anyway, right?

 

[werepossum]

Those constraints are known going in to any conflict. Traditional American values prevent us from acting like the Gestapo for decades on end. The Bush Admin managed to ding those values, not destroy them

Agreed. The Iraqis had out-maneuvered the Bush Admin before Obama was elected.

Remember back when one of the Neocon spiels was that we'd draw Al Q into Iraq so we could fight over there instead of over here?

The only way to do that was to weaken Iraq, provide an opening. Having accomplished that, we now leave Iraqis to deal with it rather that us dealing with it. Slick, huh?

It also provides a safety valve for our Saudi friends to export Jihad rather than suffer from it themselves. That's always been part of the price of the Royals' alliance with the Wahhabis. The religious police keep everybody in line in the Kingdom of Divine Right at the same time, using the ancient method of Le Chop for emphasis.

Our pals.

It's good for the Israelis, too. An Iraq paralyzed & hobbled by internal conflicts is very much a reduced threat & an impotent rival. That's the same wrt Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, and, currently under siege, Syria. They won't hesitate to have the Mossad do what they can to maintain the uproar, given that we don't seem to mind much.

More pals.

It's Michael Ledeen's "Creative Destruction" writ large in human blood.

But again, Nebor's point wasn't that the constraints weren't known going in, merely that those constraints make COIN unworkable. And probably as a necessary corollary, that those devising COIN strategies are unable to point this out because of domestic policies and sensibilities even where they recognize it.

I don't think it's fair to say the Iraqis out-maneuvered the Bush administration. They are a proud people and wanted their country back. When they think they are ready we have to accede to their wishes, else we're just the new Saddam. If Mexico had occupied America to help us throw out the British, damned straight we'd want the Mexicans to go home as quickly as practical.

And from our standpoint, having the Iraqis fighting al Qaeda IS ideal. Before Saddam was free to make accommodations with al Qaeda (as long as not too many of them came into Iraq at a time) in their mutual interest, punishing the Great Satan (America) and the Little Satan (Israel.) Now we've managed to put ourselves on the same side as the Iraqi people and al Qaeda is still being fought on Iraqi soil, but by Iraqis rather than by Americans. The more fighting we can engender between Islamic terrorist groups and non-terrorist Muslims, the better off we are as those people can no longer tacitly support these groups.

 

[Nebor]

Easy. The Bush Admin didn't negotiate the terms under which US troops remaining in Iraq would stay when they negotiated the date of withdrawal. As events unfolded, Iraqis made the terms impossible, likely their intent all along.

Unless he was willing to denounce the deal & the Iraqi govt, Obama was stuck with complete troop withdrawal.

But it's all Obama's fault, anyway, right?

Recent cable leaks and statements from members of the Iraqi government reflect the fact that they never believed we'd actually leave. But Obama ran on the platform of getting us out of Iraq, saw his opportunity and took it.

It's kind of ironic that Iraq was both invaded and abandoned based on poor Iraqi bluffing.

 

[werepossum]

Recent cable leaks and statements from members of the Iraqi government reflect the fact that they never believed we'd actually leave. But Obama ran on the platform of getting us out of Iraq, saw his opportunity and took it.

It's kind of ironic that Iraq was both invaded and abandoned based on poor Iraqi bluffing.

LOL That IS ironic.

EDIT: I don't think it's fair to blame Obama though. Had Bush II somehow managed a third term, he'd have honored his schedule as well. No American President is going to keep combat troops in a nation subject to that nation's courts, and doubly so in an Islamic nation. Even if they fundamentally despise the military, it would be political suicide. Very poor bluffing indeed.

 

[Jhhnn]

And from our standpoint, having the Iraqis fighting al Qaeda IS ideal. Before Saddam was free to make accommodations with al Qaeda (as long as not too many of them came into Iraq at a time) in their mutual interest, punishing the Great Satan (America) and the Little Satan (Israel.) Now we've managed to put ourselves on the same side as the Iraqi people and al Qaeda is still being fought on Iraqi soil, but by Iraqis rather than by Americans. The more fighting we can engender between Islamic terrorist groups and non-terrorist Muslims, the better off we are as those people can no longer tacitly support these groups.

You fail to show that Saddam accommodated Al Q at all. There was negligible Al Q activity in Iraq prior to our tearing the country apart, disbanding the entire Socialist govt including the Police & the Military, then sitting back to see who'd rush to fill in the power vacuum. Highly organized Radicals? Foreign Jihadis? Rival groups we'd armed to the teeth? Pretty much as expected, huh? Of course.

What happened to freeing the Iraqi people of tyranny, anyway? Are Islamic terrorists somehow less tyrannical than Saddam? Or did we just plop them in the vat o' shit to serve other ends?

 

[Nebor]

LOL That IS ironic.

EDIT: I don't think it's fair to blame Obama though. Had Bush II somehow managed a third term, he'd have honored his schedule as well. No American President is going to keep combat troops in a nation subject to that nation's courts, and doubly so in an Islamic nation. Even if they fundamentally despise the military, it would be political suicide. Very poor bluffing indeed.

I don't think anyone reasonable "blames Obama." He campaigned on getting us out of Iraq and saw an opportunity.

I do find it unfortunate that a continued US military involvement in Iraq likely would have lead to a more secure, and stable state long into the future, while our (almost certain) continued military involvement in Afghanistan won't lead to anything but wasted money and lives long into the future.

 

[Nebor]

You fail to show that Saddam accommodated Al Q at all. There was negligible Al Q activity in Iraq prior to our tearing the country apart, disbanding the entire Socialist govt including the Police & the Military, then sitting back to see who'd rush to fill in the power vacuum. Highly organized Radicals? Foreign Jihadis? Rival groups we'd armed to the teeth? Pretty much as expected, huh? Of course.

What happened to freeing the Iraqi people of tyranny, anyway? Are Islamic terrorists somehow less tyrannical than Saddam? Or did we just plop them in the vat o' shit to serve other ends?

Good post.

I think there was a lack of foresight\interest by those in power to make decisions beyond the invasion. Once things went to shit, in order to avoid looking totally incompetent, they said that they did it to "lure in AQ." I don't think it was purposeful though.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Easy. The Bush Admin didn't negotiate the terms under which US troops remaining in Iraq would stay when they negotiated the date of withdrawal. As events unfolded, Iraqis made the terms impossible, likely their intent all along.

Unless he was willing to denounce the deal & the Iraqi govt, Obama was stuck with complete troop withdrawal.

But it's all Obama's fault, anyway, right?

LOL. That's too funny! If I remember correctly, Obama wanted our troops out sooner than Bush.

 

[Jhhnn]

LOL. That's too funny! If I remember correctly, Obama wanted our troops out sooner than Bush.

Sigh. That doesn't change the fact that Obama pursued previously established objectives wrt residual troop strength incompatible with the position left behind by the Bush Admin's commitments.

Which is the whole point of the discussion- not the timetable, but the forces left behind. Surely you recognize the difference.

 

[werepossum]

You fail to show that Saddam accommodated Al Q at all. There was negligible Al Q activity in Iraq prior to our tearing the country apart, disbanding the entire Socialist govt including the Police & the Military, then sitting back to see who'd rush to fill in the power vacuum. Highly organized Radicals? Foreign Jihadis? Rival groups we'd armed to the teeth? Pretty much as expected, huh? Of course.

What happened to freeing the Iraqi people of tyranny, anyway? Are Islamic terrorists somehow less tyrannical than Saddam? Or did we just plop them in the vat o' shit to serve other ends?

There was one al Qaeda terrorist (I forget the name) who was recuperating in Iraq after losing a leg when we invaded. That and funding the occasional attack and rewarding suicide bombers' families was about the extent of Saddam's accommodation I think, as Islamic terrorist groups, while having the same enemies as Saddam, also posed a substantial threat to Saddam as a mainly secular dictator if they were allowed to grow too strong in Iraq. Bring in a few leaders for talks or medical treatment, yes. Allow them to establish a base in his country, not a chance.

As far as freeing the Iraqi people of tyranny, we did that. They decided they were strong enough to keep themselves free - although as Nebor alluded, this may have been purely a miscalculation, a bluff to grant themselves an illusion of strength for domestic image while taking more power - so it's now their fight to keep themselves free of tyranny just as every other nation does. Just as it would have been Saddam's fight had he been sufficiently weakened, yet left in power.

I don't think anyone reasonable "blames Obama." He campaigned on getting us out of Iraq and saw an opportunity.

I do find it unfortunate that a continued US military involvement in Iraq likely would have lead to a more secure, and stable state long into the future, while our (almost certain) continued military involvement in Afghanistan won't lead to anything but wasted money and lives long into the future.

I agree with your evaluation of Iraq and Afghanistan, I just don't think that a President McCain would have kept combat troops in Iraq without immunity. And personally, I don't support keeping ANY troops in an Islamic nation without combat troops. If Obama pulled out non-combat troops in excess of Bush's agreement, I support him completely in that.

You could however be correct; I had not heard anything about intercepted cables indicating their position with Bush was a bluff.