Captured al-Zarqawi Intel To Facilitate US Iraq Withdrawal By Mid 2008

Iraq's National Security Advisor, Mouwafak al-Rubaie, has revealed to the World's press the extent of information captured from last weeks raid on al-Zarqawi. Included in the 'huge treasure" of information captured are computer records and documents. Al-Rubaie says that the information will allow Iraq to gain the upperhand against al-Qaeda and allow US troops withdrawals to begin. Al-Rubaie estimated complete US withdrawal from Iraq in mid 2008.



This is precisely what I was expecting to come from the death of al-Zarqawi. If you subscribe to the theory that al-Qaeda and al-Zarqawi are nothing more than a US created boogiemen then you will see how this fits into that theory.

The elimination of al-Zarqawi was necessary since he had outlived his usefullness. He was not the rally point for American public opinion for action in Iraq like Bin Laden was for the Afghanistan invasion. Thus killing him off was a boost to Bush and the War on Terror.

But not only was the death of al-Zarqawi used to bolster the flailing US performance in Iraq but now it has provided the United States with a plausible way to rapidly roll-up the al-Qaeda in Iraq operation. If they were to destroy every last al-Qaeda terrorist in Iraq now it would be easily explained as made possible by the "huge treasure" of information captured from al-Zarqawi. Instead of actually being due to the fact that it was all a stage managed affair by some elements of the United States intelligence apparatus.

With al-Qaeda in Iraq obliterated the United States can rapidly withdraw forces from a "stable" Iraq and perhaps confront this new "menace" residing in Iran.

If I were running a false flag terror boogey man outfit that had outlived its usefulness and I wanted it roll-up fast, this is exactly how I would go about it. They've got bigger fish to fry now.

Wouldnt a complete troop withdrawal by 2008 be just dandy timing for the Presidential election? A cynic could be forgiven for thinking that our politicians take us for complete buffoons.

I do not believe it, perhaps the new Iraqi government wants the US troops to leave Iraq by 2008 but Mr. Bush made very clear that our troops will be in Iraq for a long time.

So who is in charge in Iraq?

Well I dont believe the Iraqi government would speak of such a momentous topic as complete US troop withdrawal without first confering with the United States government. Given that President Bush was there only a day or so ago I am quite confident to say that what al-Rubaie speaks of is also the position of President Bush.

President Bush made his remarks about Iraqi troop withdrawals being a problem for another President as a speculative answer to a specific question. It was also couched with the caveat of if and when Iraq can look after herself and becomes secure. Since this latest peice of the al-Qaeda in Iraq saga seems to point to a potential roll-up of al-Qaeda in Iraq its safe to assume that Iraq would become secure.

The bombs that dropped were pretty heavy. It's surprising that anything survived. Not saying that it was like a conspiracy or anything. What I want to know is how did they use it? Did they use the internet, or do they transfer video from their cameras, to their respective laptops, or use flash disks to communicate and have runners around Iraq, running about with flash disks?

Originally posted by subz
Wouldnt a complete troop withdrawal by 2008 be just dandy timing for the Presidential election? A cynic could be forgiven for thinking that our politicians take us for complete buffoons.

You beat me too it.. And YES they would take us for that.. I doubt there is any coincidence that Zarqawi's death comes just months before the Elections this year.. And I'm sure there might just be another surprise capture VERY VERY shortly before the Presidential Elections, which would (In some eyes atleast) almost make sure the Republicans continue to dictact this country..

I tend to think that since the comments are attributed to an Iraqi, that they may be intended to mollify Iraqis.

Most of the comments from our administration indicate they feel troops will be there for a 'long time'. I don't think two years is what they are referring to.

posted by subz

Wouldn’t a complete troop withdrawal by 2008 be just dandy timing for the Presidential election? A cynic could be forgiven for thinking that our politicians take us for complete buffoons. [Edited by Don W]

History. Americans knew we had lost the Vietnam War after the Tet Offensive in January, 1968. LBJ - never a quitter - backed out of the race in March. Nixon ran on the implied promise to end the war if he was elected. He won but did not end the war. Not until 1974. If he had told voter in 1968 “I’ll end the war in 1974" I do not believe he would have been elected. More than 20,000 American GIs died in the interval. We got nothing in 1974 we could not have had in 1968. Those men died in vain.

Plus, we killed between 1,000,000 (our number) and 3,000,000 (their number) Vietnamese.

Iraq. This is why I say the US ought to set a time schedule to withdrawal from Iraq. In not more than 180 days. But our leaders are hoping against hope the Iraqi government will permit us to "stay" for an indefinite time. That is now our primary objective.



[edit on 6/15/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by MrPenny
I tend to think that since the comments are attributed to an Iraqi, that they may be intended to mollify Iraqis.

Most of the comments from our administration indicate they feel troops will be there for a 'long time'. I don't think two years is what they are referring to.

Yeah, I think this guy might have made a bit of an boo-boo in what he was saying, but, who knows? Bush was just there, but I don't really see how in that quick visit he was able to set down the logisitics for pulling troops out. One more thing that I think may be in important to consider. What about all the other troops that are there from other countries? Only mentioning the US gives me the feeling that something may be wrong with the statement. Seems to me he would have said coalition forces.

Plus, Bush has said that we're going to be there for a "long time", which many have already mentioned. This doesn't seem like a long time for us, but I am sure that it feels like an eternity for the troops. This is one of those that I'm waiting for more information before I make a definite opinion about. I have a feeling that the administration in the coming days may have things to say about this that might not agree with the Iraqi statements.

We were also told that no permenant US bases would be built in Iraq but there are actually three. A troop withdrawal could still be complete if they just withdraw to the sprawling, mini-city military bases that have be constructed. It's a perfect jumping off point for any military action against Iran.

Also I dont understand how a) a flash drive could survive on the body of al-Zarqawi when the same blast mortally wounded him and b) why were the documents not encrypted at all? Surely al-Qaeda would use even the most basic encryption techniques and software? If they did and it was all cracked within a week makes this a really really fishy timeline.

My thought was that this is an Iraqi politician, hoping to "force the hand" of the US military into withdrawing from Iraq, by being able to say, "we don't need your help any more; Al Zaqarwi WAS the big bogey man, and now that you've whacked him it's


"Mission Accomplished ! "


So go home, white-skinned yankee infidels.

Interesting thought.. Midly realistic.. Maybe that's what the quick meeting was about.. Maybe it was just a "Get out" ... Seems simple enough

I dont think so, this Iraqi isnt just some Iraqi politician. He is the Iraqi National Security Advisor. He would most likely be a political appointee anyway.

Going public with such a statement is a big deal. If his statement isnt shared by the White House then we're in for a major hiccup in US/Iraqi relations. Iraq says they'll be fine as of 2008 whilst the US says they arent going to leave. Doesnt exactly paint the US in a favourable light does it? All those who claim the US is imperialistic in its War on Terror will be bolstered by the United States apparent over ruling of the new Iraqi government even after expressing their steadfast support for them.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

"we don't need your help any more; Al Zaqarwi WAS the big bogey man, and now that you've whacked him it's


"Mission Accomplished ! "

I like those words and I like them very much

You are very right Zarqawi Was the named Bogey man after the failure of finding Bin-ladden and the reason US and our administration base their fighting on the terrorism alias insurgents and unhappy citizens.

Now after pounding on the evils of number two man he is not more, so you are right Mission is accomplished so is not need for US help anymore.

But the irony number bad man three will step in to take over number bad man two and guess what . . . Iraq is not safe yet .

[edit on 15-6-2006 by marg6043]

Originally posted by subz
He is the Iraqi National Security Advisor.

If he was really aware of the situation, his office would be located in, say, Tempe, Arizona? sorry.

Can I guess that if a new al-Qaeda lieutenant is put forward that he will be a relatively recent convert to Wahabi Islam? He will have once been a drinker and womanizer who his neighbours didnt like, only to change his ways abruptly and become a religious luminary that advocated jihad.

To really be a major boon for those who I believe are behind 9/11, the new al-Qaeda lieutenant would have to be a Palestinian.

Who knows maybe Bin-ladden himself will be resurrected and will find its way to Iraq to terrorize the Iraqi people and the US troops.

You never know what kind of strategy is in the making here to keep the occupation going.

[edit on 15-6-2006 by marg6043]

[edit on 15-6-2006 by marg6043]

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but I am increasingly getting the impression that, rather than lieing per se, the coalition spokespersons are actually not really telling us anything. We occasionally get snippets such as al-Zarqawi and the like, just to give us something to chew on, but in the main, not very much is revealed at all.

Statements regarding intended troop deployments/withdrawls, and suchlike, only seem to encourage speculation and suspicion.

I've given up trying to figure out whether 'news' stories regarding possible future policy measures are pertinent or not. The differences between what is said to be planned and what actually happens are often marked.

Originally posted by subz
Can I guess that if a new al-Qaeda lieutenant is put forward that he will be a relatively recent convert to Wahabi Islam? He will have once been a drinker and womanizer who his neighbours didnt like, only to change his ways abruptly and become a religious luminary that advocated jihad.

To really be a major boon for those who I believe are behind 9/11, the new al-Qaeda lieutenant would have to be a Palestinian.

And just to perpetuate the whole war on terror crud that the Bush administration is spilling.. Zarqawi's successor has been named.. Could this have been the reason for the Bush visit to Iraq?

Yahoo News

Make me just want to barf.. Yeah keep it going, so it's a never ending cycle

Originally posted by subz
... Al-Rubaie estimated complete US withdrawal from Iraq in mid 2008.

 

news.yahoo.com
[...]

National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie also said he believed the security situation in the country would improve enough to allow a large number of U.S.-led forces to leave Iraq by the end of this year, and a majority to depart by the end of next year. "And maybe the last soldier will leave Iraq by mid-2008," he said.

[...]


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

those remarks seem to be from his heart, rather than his practical, worldly,
politically savvy mind.

under either party administration, there will remain a troop presence for decades
in Iraq.
remember there are always new elements and factors being added
?a seperate Kurdish state? a seperate Sunni state? a seperate Shia state??
?An increased Assymetrical Warfare developing by the new 'immigrant' leader of AQ-in-Iraq...
as 'Jihad' directs more energies against the Jewish & Catholics??

besides, like you said, the coalition & especially the USA are not going to abandon
the fortress city & Embassy built next to the ancient Babylon (city of Hilla)
nor any of the other outposts which are intentionally distanced from the
populated cities in the mesopotamia

...............

i just have to add that i share the sentiments in the earlier post (2 ahead of mine)
by; KhieuSamphan