There's progress in Iraq that no one has cited in the Media

Now, I'm not for this war persay. Well, I wasn't for the removal of Saddam for the reasons the administration claimed were the legit reasons, later proved to be false, publicly, by showing there are indeed no weapons of that nature in Iraq, not even traces. No one but Houdini could've pulled that disappearing-into-Syria trick off. So they had stockpiles that had been destroyed except for smaller amounts for emergency war conditions, which were easily accessable for the Iraqi military and most of it was simply destroyed/buried. We're talking a very small amount here, if any.

Anyways, now that we're stuck there, I'd like to see a phased withdrawl after Maliki gets kicked out of office of Prime Minister of Iraq because his Shiite ties are holding up this entire process, allowing the terrorists to kill 100s of innocent Iraqis with bombs targeting Coalition forces, largely with little result, compared to civilian deaths from these attacks. A true moderate in the prime minister's seat, even a Sunni moderate, or a Kurd, would be the way. Or from some other respected minority branch of Islam or something. So once a better PM is in place, I'd be for the phased withdrawl of our troops to pressure the Iraqis to step up because as many of us know from personal experiences, people don't always tend to do things until they absolutely have to or are forced to and that includes people even like Me. This would help concrete the formation of a real unity in Iraq because they'd have lesser and lesser of a choice, whilst being led by a true moderate caring about all, working for all.

Anyway, now that my brief political views on Iraq have been presented in a nutshell, I move onto the meat and potatoes of the post. The progress made that I've seen that no one is speaking about, even the Media.

We hear about fighting in the Northern and Northeastern regions of Iraq are the most regular incidents right now versus the AL-Qaeda types and the Sunnis with them. The Sunnis of Anbar in Ramadi and Fallujah no longer want the killers in their midst and are living more of an isolated existence with no friends but their own tribes folk. So we've effectively pushed the Al-Qaeda radical types up into the North of the country, now we have them squished between a few areas. I'll go briefly into each.

1) The Kurdish region to the very North which is the Northernmost border as well is a place where these guys cant even successfully infiltrate due to cultural differences that are huge. So any violence here is spotty. The extremists know they cannot take refuge with these people.

2) The Northeast border with Iran, a Shiite nation supporting their enemies in Baghdad and south Iraq (Mahdi Army). Not friendly folks, Cant go there.

3) The Syrian border, the Northwest border. This is the only route that they can take to exit the country if they wanted to at this point, assuming 'they' are the ones stuck in North Iraq, i realize in lower numbers they exist all over the country, im speaking of the High Commanders, the Shura Council, the Highest Leaders of the Organization(s) and their best forces. Their are cells elsewhere, but they are not the bread and butter of the organization, and get severed from the higher-ups often in communication and orders. This is their only hope, the ones tied up in the north... to go to the Syrian border at some point.

They wont do it during this offensive currently underway in the region led by U.S. forces with Iraqi backup forces. They will try to hide amongst a population in these cities an towns that lie along this Northeastern Region. Sadly, some of those places are not Sunni, like the mainly Yazidi sect town that got suicide truck bombed last week in the single worst bombing by insurgents since the start of the war. 500+ dead from the attack. This is obviously one area they are strongly trying to move into with tactics of fear. That attack means, "If we have to move through your village and stay there for some nights, let us or we will kill the rest of your people in likewise manner".

There are a couple of Sunni towns and villages up along the Northeast border area, but nothing like a Fallujah or a Ramadi. The Sunni Al-Qaeda group was taking refuge from what I understand in Baquba until we bombed Zarqawi and a top cleric from the Shura dead in that very city. Mosul is too large and diverse to "take over" for them, but they do hide there in lower numbers, albiet more quietly with less attention and attacks. These are the kind of places their higher leaders stay, secure and out of the way.

But the net has been cast, there is no where for them to run, if we pull a "Hadrian's Wall" tactic on the north of Iraq, an imaginary line just 15 miles south of Kirkuk extending across the country to the Northwestern border, it could work nicely to isolate the leadership and the best fighters, the largest groupings of them as well. There is harsh fighting everyday in Nineveh province, outside of Baquba and Kirkuk, and Taji, and others. From this "line", we could target the villages and towns and get these guys cornered just like a game of Chess.

They'll eventually lose all their pieces, they wont be able to crown their pawns because we will have the routes to their training camps closed and the camps themselves mostly destroyed, and eventually, after enough maneuvering, we will checkmate their highest leadership, the Shura Council and their supposed imaginary leader named Al-Baghdadi, or Al-Masri, but he may not actually exist, there is conflicting reports. anyway, we could trap the head and remove it this way. The scattered remnants in the Baghdad area wont have anything organization, logistics, or supplies, or training, or leaders. The ones in Anbar will drop their arms because they no longer have to fight alondside the Al-Qaeda so their families wont be murdered by them. Everything would fall apart for Al-Qaeda In Iraq. I realize it's just one head of the beast which contains many more, but hey, it's a start.

If the Commanders are intelligent enough as I hope they are, they are currently doing such a strategy because of all the fighting and troop movement North lately. The battles in the media are all up North lately. This is a good sign, but why isnt anyone talking about it? I mean, those who voted to authorize the war and are still rooting for it in some manner or form should be touting this, especially if it continues to be successful. Some may say "Because the criminal liberal media own all the news stations!" And to that I say, you are living in the 1990's with Rush Limbaugh and/or Mancow on the radio, hehe.

Can you imagine, for one moment, if the most experience fighters and terrorists out of the entire AQII (al-qaeda in iraq) did not get captured or killed, but were able to live in peace, maybe in Iraq, maybe elsewhere, while preparing attacks as leaders on American and Western European interests and targets in our borders and outside of them. And they'd be veterans of gunfights, of rocket attacks, of all kinds of craziness. Anyone the U.S. attacks and cant kill in a War becomes a hardened veteran as far as im concerned. And this is the cycle because the leaders in AQII at the beginning were former Mujahideen fighters from Afghanistan! So you see it is a cycle. For this reason I feel we cannot allow these guys to get away. Just keep the North blocked off, and systematicly take the whole damn thing over. It can be done, Northern Iraq in its whole is about the size of one small to medium State of America, and theres 50 you know. So certainly this can be done.

What are your thoughts on the current situation, as well as my ideas?

[edit on 8/22/2007 by runetang]

nice post realy interesting but its not like a chess game, yea cut of there entrance routes nice but it wont stop alot of people are against the us occupation and iraqis with in will still fight what about people from abroad move in and take up arms?

your right the president is doing nothing all and it is a mostly sunni country so a sunni president will be ideal.
good thread though i found it a good read thanks

the foreigners moving in are usually Sunni, and need logistic and financial help from fellow Sunni extremists in the country to "get them in". Theres a whole Iranian infiltration going on of purely Shiite fighters, but im not discussing that one at this moment in the thread (later).

contrary to some belief, they dont run across a sandy wasteland border in the middle of the night in small groups, they drive across border checkpoints into the nation with others in the vehicle, without guns/equipment, usually with false identification/passports showing they are Iraqi, which were created and sent to them from within Iraq, or at least the 1st donor card to create the fakes came from Iraq.

also, the foreign fighters dont just decide "ho hum, these americans are infidels, im hitting the border jack!" and take off with thier AK-47 for the border. no. they get brought together into groups and trained to some extent in their home countries by people from the AQII and other terrorist groups inside of Iraq. They also supply the fake IDs, the logistical support of providing a vehicle and a driver and knowing the checkpoint to pass through, then having them drive you to a safe place 100s of miles deep into the country safely without being discovered as a foreigner. It's not as easy as people think. It requires alot of help from within.

And im saying those helpers from within will be halfway destroyed up North in a movement I described, and the other half would be cut off from their leaders who are stuck up North or now dead/captured, and the networks in place to finance and provide the fake IDs and to get them into Iraq from the other countries isnt as easy or readily available, by far.

Hitting the organization from the Top does ALOT, hitting it from the bottom does absolutely nothing. You can mow down 100 unsuspecting al-qaeda fighters in a jeep convoy in the desert while in a helicopter and acheve next to nothing in the scheme of things, yet killing 1 important person higher up in the organization can temporarily disrupt all kinds of things, which will cause delays all across the board, less car bomb, less suicide bomb, less ability to supply foreign fighters with what they need and bring them in, less ability to get them securely safe in Iraq, and sometimes their info is found out about through capture of docs/computers and through interrogation and they get arrested in their home countries or put on lists to watch out for if theyve already managed to leave for Iraq.

[edit on 8/22/2007 by runetang]

Won't anyone comment on the strategy of trapping Al-Qaeda in Iraq leadership and veterans in Northern Iraq while we have the opportunity to do so? Forcing them to be captured, killed, or flee the country (doubtful).

Isn't this what our boys are dying for, all of these countries? USA, Canada, New Zealand, The U.K., The Netherlands, France, others?

I hope our military leaders know what they're doing..
..and that this isn't some Nazi-esque Hitler(Bush/Cheney) running it all despite having competent Generals in the field.

[edit on 8/24/2007 by runetang]

reply to post by runetang

Isn't this what our boys are dying for, all of these countries? USA, Canada, New Zealand, The U.K., The Netherlands, France, others?

Im sure youre right about some of the others but I dont believe France even sent a waterboy.
Anyway, yea ive read about Malikis vot of no confidence, more or less and I say if the guy is that bad then we need to go head and have him replaced.
This government is still in the formative stages and mistakes will be made but mistakes at this critical point could have sever consequences.
Im sure if the US gets to the point where hes just gotta go, then they will hold some kind of special election or something and have him voted out of office.

The only way were going to be rid of Al Queda is for the Iraqi people to gain more support from the other cities and villages and fight off Al Queda themselves.
Its pretty clear that even as many US troops and other forces there, including Iraqi, they cant be everywhere at the same time, so this would be an enormous help to their country.

For the perspective of seven, active duty military that are in-country, I suggest you read this article:

The War As We Saw It

reply to post by Kr0n0s


my bad, the France bit was because i know they have some boys in Afghanistan and in Lebanon near the Israeli border, trying to keep peace in both locations.

And since the Conservative President Sarkozy is in office, him and Bush have grown much closer while Bush and the new UK Premier have drifted slightly. Personally I'm afraid of what will happen when the USA and France find themselves on the same page in history again, like they seem to be going toward now with the Govts of both countries. Last time they got 'buddy buddy', The USA was created thanks to French blockage and bombardment of Yorktown where Gen. Cornwallace was held up. He could've fought just the Americans off until he got reinforced or fled, but the French sealed the deal for us. Back in Europe, right at the same time, the Revolution was taking place in France, and the people power was sweeping both countries in different forms.

So im just afraid that another new world changing event, entity, war, SOMETHING may come of it. If world politics was 5-card poker, having the USA and France in the same hand is like having a pair of Aces and a Joker on the first deal, before you replace any of your cards (up to 3, or 4, depending on the type of poker).

I hate to say it, but all this Islamic Extremist World Movement needs to truly take root for generations to come for sure without having to worry and struggle and risk destruction by our righteous fury is the full support of Russia militarily. Iran already has it. Tensions are rising bigtime between Georgia and Russia, shots been fired, a Russian plane was shot at the other day by SAM or Anti-air guns in Georgia. When Russia begins supporting the full Islamic cause openly, the West will really have something to worry about.

Thats why I say, "We didnt want this Iraq war, you (Bush) made us have it anyway, now FINISH IT UP and bring the boys home, or do a combination of both at the same time if the strategy calls for it." Dont leave it for the next President to decide, because thats going to be a Democrat, and theyre going to bring the troops home.

So if Al-Qaeda in Iraq is not dealt some deathblows by 2009, they will never, ever go away, and Iraq will be dealing with them long after we leave as occupiers/liberators/police. I just happen to notice we have that particular group in a tight spot, and we should invoke the winepress of God's wrath on their arses you know what im sayin'. But yes I realize there are many other groups we need to deal with over there, none as bad as this one. The rest we might be able to get involved in politics if we get a unified in office over there.

PUT A FRIKKIN SUNNI AS PRIME MINISTER, THEN THINGS WILL GET DONE.
Change the President from Kurd to a Shiite, and give President more powers.
Make the Interior Minister a Shiite, but make both of his deputies Sunnis.
Take the Kurdsh group and allow it to govern itself, what we need here is a real understanding between Sunni and Shiite, the Kurds are an ethnic group, some are Sunni and some are Shiite. Some are neither.

[edit on 8/24/2007 by runetang]

runetang, great post.

The media won't cover positive progress, I don't think the media knows much anyway. Of course maybe the media has been asked not to report good news. Maybe Iraq has other strategic value like since its a war zone and militants can get there rather easily if they wanted to, maybe the perception that the insurgents can win is something the military wants projected so the the crazies keep coming from all around to get chewed up. Of course the news could just be dumb and maybe cares more about bad news and great ratings then good news and decent ratings.

I tend to think that the government is two faces but one group. So democrat of republican we will still be at war, a twist of irony would be if hillary gets in and says "You know Bush messed up big time so now we have to involve ourselves in other hot spots or expand upon what we are already in. Just to clean up this mess he created."

Anyway yeah, right now a lot of the middlemen and some higher ups have been reported mostly killed and some captured. The coalition's increased on scene presence, but mostly IRAQI CIVILIANS reporting about the terrorist presence has to be making a huge dent in the terrorist infrastructure and logistics. Forcing them out of the cities and the surrounding suburbs is also a huge piece of strategy making them easier to target.

I think the tipping point has been reached in favor of Iraq and its allies though. The local communities are starting to stand up to the terrorists with both guns and anonymous tips. This in itself means its not a question of if the insurgents "terrorists" can be beat, but when they will be beaten.

I think over the last couple of years the Iraqi populace has become war weary and I think they are seeing with their own eyes that the "Insurgents" are not there to help them. Whereas the Coalition troops are there to help them. Are they "coalition" perfect? no. Is their intent generally in favor of the Iraqi people? yes. Troops on the ground I mean, not some politician who isn't there on the ground everyday. Have insurgents initiated sewage, water, electrical, education, community programs? no. Has the coalition? yes.
The slowest person could see who is on their side.

Its too late for the terrorists to outlast the Coalition. The Iraqi people have seen what the insurgents have brought to the table with their own eyes, and seem to have rejected it. When I read about a village organizing and fighting off 200 terrorist fighters after they purposely murdered one or two of the locals it sends chills down my spine that the end of war in Iraq may be drawing near. There will still be extremists scattered around but like you said the backbone could be broken soon.

Being war weary the people want to end the violence and will negotiate with each other once the agitators are dealt with, this include the militias "Al Sadr". People seeing how ineffective the last government they elected was will choose more wisely when they vote during he next elections. Instead of blindly throwing their support to whomever the local religious figure says to.

We can only hope for the best.

Originally posted by Runetang

We're talking a very small amount here, if any.

No all WMD’s where destroyed, I know this as I’ve met a few people who where in the Ba’th party at the time. Saddam ordered their destruction because he was fed up with Iraqis starving; he hated Iraq being poor when it (and him) could be so much richer which is good for his regime (like pre-1991 when Iraqis had free first-world style health care, and education, university subsidies, subsidised food, and petrol too ).
He long wanted peace between himself and the U.S like they had before the invasion of Kuwait because we have common enemies (Muslim fundamentalists and Iran), and that would be in Iraq’s interests.

The US knew it but is a good country led by evil men, they didn’t want someone in charge who would try to spread Ba’thist ideology abroad, or threaten Israel (even hypothetically), they wanted to privatise Iraq’s state run industries and open them up to foreign investment (something they did though most business have collapsed due to the security situation), they wanted to let Israel get its hands on Iraqi water by destroying the dams Saddam built that drained out the Marsh Arabs, and they wanted a democracy because that’s how they think things should be. (Even though well over 50% of Iraqis agree with stoning women to death, and had only be prevented by Saddam’s Iraq was like most of the Mid East a dictatorship.

A true moderate in the prime minister's seat, even a Sunni moderate, or a Kurd, would be the way. Or from some other respected minority branch of Islam or something.

And what makes you think one will get elected?
When: Maliki is unpopular because he won’t order U.S troops out now, and he won’t do that because if he did, he and most people who’ve taken part in this Iraqi government would either successfully flee the country, or be strong up by the nearest lamp post. When he is unpopular because he wants to continue forcing Iraqis into being one state rather than going their separate ways, because he isn’t pro-Iran style Islam enough, women aren’t stoned to death for the most serious religious crimes.

So once a better PM is in place, I'd be for the phased withdrawl of our troops to pressure the Iraqis to step up because as many of us know from personal experiences, people don't always tend to do things until they absolutely have to or are forced to and that includes people even like Me.

What are you on about? Iraqis are a tribal society with loyalties to the tribe (because (like it or not) that’s how you stay alive in Iraq). The tribes are only interested in defending their people of Iraq, they have almost no interest in defending people who are not in their sect. Why?
Because there’s lot’s of hatred between different sects. Why?
Ever since the fall of Saddam Muslim fundamentalists have felt far more free to try, to forcefully impose their version of Islam on people who don’t follow it. This has created resentment, retaliation, and ultimately war because every tribe has a duty to defend its own members (often even if they’re (morally) in the wrong).
Iraqis already have more than enough motivation to fight, and that’s to fight (and retaliate) against any group who tred’s on their turf. This is why Iraq is in a state of never ending civil war.
There is too much hatred to unite Iraq, even if on the higher level of politics a peace was established between different leaders, it may only be a matter of days before a few carefully placed car bombs by bigots would destroy it, for everyone else, which by the way is what a minority of some Islamic bigots want.

Regarding Progress…
Yes we are killing the brave Sunni resistance who despite their tacky weapons- outdated equipment, have continuously resisted our occupation for trying to prop-up a Malki government (interested in allowing closet genocide against the Sunnis).
This is very nice of us, we…
1. Kicked out their secular dictator, who before sanctions brought wealth to Iraq, who even during them, maintained social security, law and order and a government closed to Muslim fundamentalists (so successfully at war with them they caused hardly any trouble to anyone).
2. Imposed a guy we knew their enemies (pro-stoning to death Shiites; the majority of Iraq) would elect. Who hates Sunnis and accidentally on purpose allows Iraqi government to spent on death squads targeting Sunnis.
3. This causes Sunnis resistance to intensify resistance against the Maliki government, which is then destroyed by the western occupation, because it happens to oppose us for supporting the Maliki government.

So yes a bunch of Sunni fighters are about to get killed.
But so what?

At least these are the people who are mostly likely to oppose greater ties with Iran when we’re gone, who are most likely to be able to produce a secular dictator, instead of the other Muqtada al-Sadr style dictator the Shiite people of Iraq are most likely to elect. At least these brave Sunnis are the sorts of men who will wilfully oppose the fundamentalists forms Islam, fight tribalism, and fight for a secular Ba’thist version of Iraq, in other words they’re the only ones capable of bringing Iraq close to the riches it enjoyed pre-1991.

Conclusion…

Runetang Don’t you see that the current Iraqi government (pro-west though it is) can’t last without the occupation, because the Iraqi people hate it is for being too pro-us. Surely is definitely the case when it’s the absence of declaring Shiire Law, Iraq a strong ally of Iran, open-overt support for genocide against the Sunni, and a commitment to splitting the rest of Iraq up, as well as kicking us out; that has held Malikis government support up.

Therefore Maliki is only a stepping stone government for one that will make the Iranian government seem pro-west in comparison.

So when we leave Iraq we will need the Sunni people (we’re fighting today) to set up a different dictatorship to what the Shiites want. This dictatorship will be almost identical to the Saddam one; because if it isn’t we can take great discomfort in the fact that it will be even more awfully like Iran’s (that after all is what those war impoverished Shiite seek).
In effect by taking on the Sunni we have effectively sided with the Shiite enemy.

This has always been the “choice” that’s confronted us (as the Iraqi psychic itself hasn’t changed). Therefore not only was the Iraq war mistake, but it was an attack against exactly the sort of government our interests, would best have in Middle East. Think about this: Militarily weak, but anti Iran, and anti fundamentalist Islam, pro capitalism, with uses of socialism only to keep control, and balances in the economy right (something Britain and America along with almost every other country also do).

Well you didn't need to tell me quite so much that I already know, but appreciate the thorough reply.

Do I think the Maliki Government can stand as it is right now without the U.S. and Coalition there? No, it couldnt. The Shiites are great and many there being the majority and all, but the radical sect, the Mahdi Army Sadr types, would get rid of Maliki before the Sunnis would! Lol. And put someone like, oh I dont know, Sadr in there instead.

Then Baghdad would become Shiite and the Sunnis that are left in Adamiyah neighborhood and others will have to move for their safety. AT LEAST IT WOULD MEAN EVENTUAL PEACE. Yes you are right, Iraqis are tribal and have tribal ties and hatreds and rivalries, so if you areent going to govern them with a Hitler/Pol-pot Esque fellar like Saddam, you have to SPLIT THEM UP, unfortunately, if they cant get along, no matter what.

Talk to them, theyll say "Im sunni, i dont wanna live besides shiites". and the shiites will say, "im shiite, i dont wanna live beside sunnis". This is the will of the people.

We are preventing the will of the people, and that will is seperation along religious lines Sunni/Shiite, as it has always been in Islamic countries. Usually Sunni countries will have a very small Shiite minority, as the same with Iran having a Sunni tribal minority as well. But the vast majority are all alike in that religous respect, and maybe Iraq needs to split up along those lines if it cannot stick together on the basis of Humanity and Islam.

So we should squash Al-Qaeda in Iraq, NOT the Sunni Tribal Resistance fighters youd find deep into Anbar near say Ramadi or some such, but the ones we are tracking and following, the murderers, the ones affiliated with the same group that attacked us first on 9/11. Let's just deal with them, then WITHDRAW ASAP, and let the Sunnis and Shiites split themselves in twain while the Kurds watch and push anyone who tries to get "out of the pit" back into it. They need to just deal with their societies own problems, WE DO NOT NEED TO DIE FOR THEIR TRIBAL FEUDS.

You can agree with that, can't you? Is it worth it for a citizen of the U.K., born and raised in Northampton, to die from an Iranian supplied I.E.D. to the Mahdi Army or a break away group outside of Basra because of these lame ass pointless uneducated tribal feuds? Where people kill each other over the dumbest things?

I'm just saying, the current governmental structure of Iraq was partially decided by the U.S. with input from countries like the U.K. foremost im sure. Iraqis had somewhat of a say too, but lets be honest. Someone had the bright idea of giving the Sunnis the third post? I mean lets get real at least they shouldve gotten the Prime Ministry or Interior, for symbolic purposes. It was doomed from the start. So maybe we need to leave so it can fall down and be sorted out by the people whom we "freed". My main thing is, lets kill Al-Qaeda folks while we can and are still there and happen to be in a good position to do so, and maybe the government that will come out of the chaos of our withdrawl will be better than an Islamic Caliphate, you know?

[edit on 8/29/2007 by runetang]