The Iraq Attack, a master stroke.
Today's Topic: Iraq, the master stroke of
military strategy by that military genius,
Well maybe not a master stroke, and maybe George
was not a genius but just smart enough to take his
military experts advice on how to conduct the war,
but there certainly have been some beneficial things
to come out of the Iraq invasion as it concerns Al Qaeda.
Here are some of those beneficial things that I came up
with when I made this presentation on Oct 11. These are
mostly my thoughts based on various sources, like FoxNews,
CNN, and Stratfor.
(1) It moved Al Qaeda from Afghanistan where they
are very difficult to find or fight and they have
moved operations to Iraq, where their guerrilla
strategy is much more difficult to implement and
also where they have to defeat the Shia (80%) of
Iraq, along with the US.
(2) It enlisted the help of a very good portion of
the Shia population of Islam to fight Al Qaeda for
(3) It threw Al Qaeda off balance and has given
them incentive to redirect their attack against
the US, to now attacking Shiite targets in
Iraq, thus making more and more enemies among
their own Islamic world, who they had hoped to
recruit and rule.
(4) It brought about the resolve to stop the proliferation
of nuclear weapons within dangerous hands.
(5) It brought Saudi Arabia fully into the effort to
stop Al Qaeda.
(6) It gave us an operating base in the area. Before
the attack, the only country in the area that would
allow US troops to deploy from was Kuwait.
(7) Iraq has given a partial financial resource to help
finance the war. Along with getting the Shiites of
Iraq to fight Al Qaeda, some of the bill can be paid
by Iraqi oil which has been flowing for some time now
and much of this money is going to finance the new Iraqi
army and police, and these forces are becoming the front
line of the war, actually taking about 95% of the casualties.
For today lets just look how reasons 1 thru 3 have been
If you go back and look at what Al Qaeda is up to you
see that the Al Qaeda script planned and envisioned
the following scenario for the war. Sources for this
have been programs on the History channel, The Learning
channel and some from Stratfor. The very good book
by George Friedman, "America's Secret War" also has
some good coverage of this.
(1) USA would attack Afghanistan in response to 9-11 and
try to weed out Al Qaeda from the country.
(2) Al Qaeda would remain hidden away in remote areas
of Afghanistan and conduct a war of attrition over
many years just as they did with the Russians. This
would demonstrate to the Islamic world that Al Qaeda
was powerful and the word of God, and it would discredit
the US who would be further attacked in whatever Islamic
country they had any presence. The movement would grow
and eventually the Islamic caliphate would be reborn
under a worldwide true jihadist government.
The Al Qaeda thinking here was actually pretty good
and based on a model that had given them success
against the Russians. Afghanistan was and is a perfect
place for them to conduct the guerrilla war that they
envisioned. The terrain is so rough and hard to move
in that military movements are very difficult. There
are also thousands of natural hiding places and cover.
This cover is necessary for a guerrilla war for several
reasons. It gives a sanctuary where the guerrillas can
safely hide and just as important it gives transportation
routes that are hidden whereby supplies can be carried
to the guerrillas. This transportation network is all
important to a guerrilla war. During Afghanistan's
war with Russia, there was a constant flow of food
and munitions to the guerrillas. This amounted to
many tons of supplies daily being moved over six main
supply routes into Afghanistan. In east Afghanistan
supplies came in from Pakistan through the following points:
(4) Miram Shah
Supplies also came in from the south thru Girzi-Jungle
in Pakistan, and some were brought in from the west
from Pakistan when Pakistan was able to get permission
to use the eastern part of Iran.
Of the above routes the first 5 worked very well because
these were all through very rough mountains and this
cover served to hide the supply movements. The worst
supply route was the one through Girzi-Jungle that came
in over the smooth arid, open area, with little
possibility of hiding and with no early warning of attack.
Supplies coming this way were easily spotted from the air
and came under constant attack. This above background can
be found in a lot more detail in the book "Afghanistan
The Bear Trap" by Mohammad Yousaf"
The following all represents my analysis and only contains
two direct Stratfor quotes.
The US military wanted no part of trying to fight a
guerrilla war in Afghanistan if it could be avoided.
The Russian experience of 10 years had shown that it
was a loosing proposition. If the US had sent a
major army into Afghanistan, they could have got
bogged down into a long unwinnable quagmire.
Russia did and England also made the same mistake
many years earlier. Remember, this was just what Al Qaeda
wanted. Also remember, that Al Qaeda wanted these
thousands of targets provided by the US military
so that the Islamic world would unite and help
drive these "crusaders" out of Afghanistan. Remember
also that this was all part of a strategy to bring
new jihadists governments to the Islamic countries.
When the US refused to cooperate by sending thousands
of targets to Afghanistan, the jihadists really had
nothing to do but hide after Afghanistan fell to
the Northern and Western Alliance which sided with
the US to fight their hated Taliban. That is, they
had nothing to do but hide up until the US went
With the US ignoring Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and
going into Iraq, Al Qaeda had to adjust their plans
if they were going to bring jihadist Islamic governments
as was their plan. So now, Al Qaeda had to leave their
hideouts and move to Iraq, if they wanted to kill American
targets and bring about the uniting of the Islamic
world. Al Qaeda's new scenario was that they would
move operations to Iraq and lead the Iraqis against
the American oppressors. They would lead this fight
and drive the Americans out, and Iraq would be their
new jihadist state. They needed one badly after
having lost their first one, Afghanistan. To add
embarrassment to losing their first jihadist state,
they had lost it while only killing 2 Americans.
So, a good portion of Al Qaeda packed up and moved
operations to Iraq. This immediately put them at
an important disadvantage compared to their original
plan. Iraq is not mountainous with lots of natural hideouts
provided by rough terrain. Supplying an Iraqi guerrilla
was more like they had to do in their southern
Afghanistan which was supplied thru Girzi-Jungle in
Pakistan. Remember, this was the worst supply route
into Afghanistan because of it being an open area
with no natural cover and supplies coming in that way
were under constant attack with little success. This
area also provided no sanctuary for guerrillas because
of lack of hiding places. Moving into Iraq, Al Qaeda
had to give up one of their most precious allies, the
really rough terrain of Afghanistan. Also this really
rough terrain of Afghanistan bordered Pakistan which
gave complete sanctuary for resting guerrilla troops
and complete sanctuary for munitions storage, very
close to the battle. They have no such perfect sanctuary
Still, Al Qaeda had many American targets in Iraq,
which were lacking in Afghanistan. They also had other
Muslims there to lead against the Americans. This
really did not work out for Al Qaeda, though. The
thing that caused the next Al Qaeda failure was the
Shia population of Iraq and the Kurds. These two
groups made up the vast majority of Iraq. Together,
they probably made up 85% of Iraq. These two groups
had suffered under the former government in Iraq
and they had much incentive to want a voice in the
new government. The US was an ally that was giving
them that voice. The US was offering these people
the opportunity to set up their next government.
These people loved that idea, and they sided with
the US who was giving them this promise and overseeing
the process that gave them this new government.
Al Qaeda, and Sunni resistance did their best to
recruit their Shia and Kurdish brothers, but the
brothers did not seem interested. This led to a
rift of major proportions in the population.
With this failure of the Shia to be dictated to
by Al Qaeda in this war, Al Qaeda decided that the Shia
had to be punished. Al Qaeda started up attacks
against Shiite targets. The Sunni resistance was also
killing any Shia that sided with the US. Between
the Sunni and Al Qaeda punishment of the Shia,
95% of fatalities in Iraq quickly became Shiites.
There is long standing bad blood between Sunni
and Shiite and in final analysis, Al Qaeda could
not resist punishing the Shia for their failure
to join their jihadist movement. About a month
ago, Al Qaeda declared official war on the Shia.
Since that time the fatalities in the war have
increased for the Shia and they are now taking
about 98% of the fatalities. Just for example
take this latest one day report from Stratfor on
causalities in Iraq:
Stratfor quote from daily reports:
1115 GMT -- IRAQ -- Two suicide car bombers staged
separate attacks in Iraq on Oct. 11, killing 38
people and wounding 57. The first attack occurred
at 11 a.m. local time in the main market of Tall
Afar, 260 miles northwest of Baghdad, leaving 30
civilians dead and 45 wounded, Tall Afar's police
chief reported. The second explosion, in western
Baghdad at about noon, killed eight Iraqi troops,
and injured 11 troops and one civilian, said police
Capt. Qassim Hussein.
Notice in the above news release, no dead Americans.
The training of Iraqis for the new military and
police continues successfully, and the number of
volunteers increases as time goes on. The ploy
of the insurgents to kill Iraqis cooperating with
the US is not working. More and more Iraqis are
joining the US side. In time, the strategy is for
the US to pull back troop levels and leave the
fighting 100% Iraqis against jihadists.
So not only have we avoided the unfavorable terrain
of Afghanistan, we have gained a Shiite army to
take most of the casualties in this fight. In a
short time, if things continue as at present, the
Iraqis will be doing 100% of the fighting just as
the new Afghanistan government is doing about
100% of the fighting in Afghanistan against the
now banished Taliban and Al Qaeda.
As I said, Iraq was a master stroke from a military
point of view. We avoided a war in potentially
unwinnable environment and have effectively recruited
an army from among those that the enemy thought was
on their side. All this was done while simultaneously
reducing the fear of a future nuclear attack. It
doesn't get much better than this.
Now, how come you don't hear Bush bragging about these
facts on the news?
When Kerry made the charge, "The US should have sent
an army into Afghanistan and got bin Laden", why did
Bush not counter with the fact that his military staff
told him that fighting in Afghanistan is not a good
When Kerry said that the attack into Iraq has brought
about thousands of terrorists to go there and fight.
how come Bush didn't say, "An invasion into Afghanistan
would have brought thousands of terrorists to Afghanistan
to fight us?" "How come Kerry overlooks that point
when he says we should have sent an army into a
Afghanistan" "Why does he insist that we fight
the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan where they have ideal
conditions for guerrilla warfare, and he hates
the idea of us baiting them into Iraq, where
conditions favor us and we can recruit an Iraqi
force that is highly motivated to defeat Al Qaeda
in order to set up their own government?" Not only
are Iraqis helping the US against jihadists, they
are taking control of their country. Not only are
these thousands of new Iraqi police and army fighting
the jihadists, their pay is coming from Iraqi oil that
is being pumped, and at the same time Iraq is getting
their own government picked by the people. This is a
total win-win situation.
Bush did not point any of this out because it would
have worked against us. Just imagine if Bush went on
CNN and said, "My plan is to get the Iraqis to
take on Al Qaeda in the deserts and towns of
Iraq." Every Al jazeera news broadcast would have
carried the news that Iraq is just a pawn of the
Christian west. They would have broadcast replays
of Bush saying that his strategy was to get Islamic
against Islamic. You can imagine how inflammatory
this could be to the Islamic world. It would also have
given many more jihadist volunteers.
On the other hand Bush can say, "Lets bring democracy to
Iraq." This doesn't bring much support from the US
public, but it does give Al Qaeda motivation to stop the
US right here and now before Iraq is just another
puppet of the US. That is how Al Qaeda sees it. As Al
Qaeda takes on this challenge they see their whole strategy
slipping away if they see democracy coming instead of their
jihadist government to their second country involved in their
jihad. Bush's message "bring democracy to Iraq" was probably
put forth to the world, more for the Jihadist's sake than
for gaining support among the public. Jihadist's basic
strategy is to bring true Jihadist government to Islamic
countries, not democracy. For the Jihadist to succeed,
they must bring true jihadist government, not democracy.
This goal of the US, democracy, has effectively baited
the jihadists into Iraq.
As long as the jihadists perceive that a coming democracy
in Iraq equates to their total failure, they will keep
doing everything in their power to pull off their
victory, even if it includes the incredibly stupid
idea of getting 85% of Iraq as well as the US opposed to
them. They have walked into a trap, and just as the
American public hasn't figured this out, Al Qaeda haven't
seemed to figure it out either.
Failure in Iraq, will be a major blow to Al Qaeda credibility.
They started out wanting to defeat the US and appear to be
ending up defeated by Muslims in Iraq.
Bush does not point out the success of his strategy for
fear of endangering it, but yet it is a further extension
of his main strategy to get the Muslims of the area to
clean up their own act.
In actual fact, a primary purpose in Iraq was
denial of nuclear weapons to this regime, but
in addition, a major windfall has come about
that has side tracked Al Qaeda from their original
script and now has them pitted against Iraqi
Now go back and read reasons 1 through 3 of how
these reasons have proven to be favorable to our effort.
Maybe next time I will go into some of the other
reasons of how attack into Iraq has worked for us.
Not to get side tracked here but as long as we
looked at the Iraqi casualties lets look at Afghanistan
Stratfor quote from daily reports:
1107 GMT -- AFGHANISTAN -- Nineteen police officers,
including a deputy provincial police chief, were
killed late Oct. 10 during an ambush by suspected
Taliban guerrillas in southern Afghanistan. An Interior
Ministry spokesman said an attack by dozens of
jihadist insurgents against a convoy of some 150
police officers on a dirt road in Helmand province
sparked a gun battle that lasted into the early hours.
The balance of stratfor reports can be read on www.stratfor.com
Again, no dead Americans, in Afghanistan attacks. The
strategy in Afghanistan is holding well as it also
seems to be taking hold well in Iraq.
It seems that finding American targets for Al Qaeda
is getting more difficult all the time.
[edit on 11-5-2005 by Springer]