Iraq: not looking good

[KrustyKidd]

Lots of places are not peaceful and have brutal dictators in charge - some of them with oil like Sudan. We don't 'have to' do anything about them so it does not follow that anything needed to be done about Saddam. He may have been a brute but the Islamists were his number one enemy (the US was second).

Saddam was a lot more than you say. He was in violation of UN law in many ways with conditions of a ceasfire he did not adhere to.

The House of Saud is capable of looking after itself. There is nothing the US could or should do to help other than getting US troops out of the country which were needlessly providing Arab nationalists.

Of course they are. However, they were not and, needed some persuassion.

The US will be inevitably forced to 'cut and run' - the cost of the war is simply too high. I am pretty sure that troops will start coming home after 2008 no matter who wins the presidency. If anything the invasion has proved that US military power has its limits and simply encouraged Iran to pursue nukes at whatever cost.

Hopefully Iraq will be a more settled place in 2008 than it is now but, in any case, it is up to the Iraqi government to get their act together in order to make it so. I doubt that it will be seen as cutting and running but rather a drawing down of support for the country as they take on the day to day tasks for themselves. I do wonder why you see this as encouraging Iran to persue nukes at any cost though. Iran was never in any danger of having a US ground assault or unconventional attack against them nor are they now so, if anything, by persuing nukes they open theemselves up for non conventional attacks making your theory wrong.

You must remember that very few people in these countries are willing to accept a decision just because the 'majority said so'. Any lip service they pay to democracy is because they believe that their tribe will make the decisions.

Tribal or not, more people per capita voted in Iraq then in Canada's election. Seems they pick this democracy thing up pretty good contrary to your doom and gloom

It is hopeless pipe dream to believe that a foreign military can come in, depose the existing govt, set up a democracy and leave.

However, what is not hopeless is for the coalition to throw out the existing regime and create the conditions for a democratic society to take place such as what sixty five percent of the poulation participated in and continue to do.

[jdobbin]

Hopefully Iraq will be a more settled place in 2008 than it is now but, in any case, it is up to the Iraqi government to get their act together in order to make it so. I doubt that it will be seen as cutting and running but rather a drawing down of support for the country as they take on the day to day tasks for themselves. I do wonder why you see this as encouraging Iran to persue nukes at any cost though. Iran was never in any danger of having a US ground assault or unconventional attack against them nor are they now so, if anything, by persuing nukes they open theemselves up for non conventional attacks making your theory wrong.

The U.S. has been forecasting a drawdown for years now. They have quietly boosted numbers back to 140,000 and things (according to the Pentagon's own numbers) are worse now than a year ago. Not very promising.

[Black Dog]

Yes it is. Shows how the US action in Iraq has forced the Suadis to take the unpleasent action and has taken care of that particular threat for now. However, as you state above about the middle class

Any evidence Iraq was the factor? Any at all?

Yes, I'll bet it does as you don't understand how much of a threat Al Queda and conservative Wahabbism was to the regime. The Wahabbists were using the US presence there to galvanize the people (middle and lower and even upper class) against the Royals. Hence, the US went along with the request to leave As it was feeding the Conservative problem . However, the Suaids, willing to appease the Wahabbists still were unwilling to confront them until the US occupied Iraq. Glad it makes you laugh as this is pretty common knowledge to pretty much every anyalist

then it shouldn't be too hard to produce a cite.

The Taliban? Running an Islamic state and hand in hand with an organizatin that seeks a larger Islamic state. Ya, maybe you're right but inconsequential as every Conservative Wahabbist seeks a larger Islamic State. That's their doctrine. As for being small time, they took over an entire nation and held it. Hardly small time.

Given that the Taliban's ability to project their vision beyond their borders was nil mand given the ease with which they were dislodged once someone decided to do something about them shows how small time they were.

I'll explain this to you; terrorism can change goverments in weak regimes and gain momentum in order to form a government. The Conservative Wahabbist religion endorses terrorism for their ends rather than the reason for their existence so is hardly an organization or idealology trying to simply acheive property damage or mischief.

And yet it hasn't happened. If we are, as you seem to think, a hair's breadth away from the Caliphate, what the hell are they waiting for?

They took Afganistan, would probably have taken Saudi Arabia and, at this moment are very strong in Pakistan. Other countries that come to mind are Somalia and Ethipia.

So, like the Taliban they can grab a patch of dirt as long as they face no significant opposition. Hardly the stuff of empires.

How was invading Iraq a mistep? Most morons say that it creates terrorists but here you are saying that terrorists are not a problem so, we got rid of a dictator and rid of his WMD as well as aspirations of regional power. You also show us that in your opinion, the war on terror is being won as one of the pressures the US placed on SA was to make social and human rights reforms.

I'm saying the terrorists are not an existensial threat. They never were. The war in Iraq was a distraction, a rallying point for the Islamists, a waste of resources targeting an impotent dictator. IOW, your caliming victory in a war against an enemy that was never athreat in the first place.

[KrustyKidd]

Any evidence Iraq was the factor? Any at all?

Of course I do.

The invasion itself helped generate the forces that have Al Qaeda on the defensive now. Iraq is the most strategic country in the Middle East and following the invasion of Iraq, key countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran began to change their policies to support the U.S. against Al Qaeda. The invasion was a good idea and the administration had good reasons for doing it. But they had nothing to do with WMD or Al Qaeda.

We went into Iraq to isolate and frighten the Saudi government into cracking down on the flow of money to Al Qaeda. Bush never answered the question for fear of the international consequences. Early in the war, the President said that the key was shutting down Al Qaeda's financing. Most of the financing came from Saudi Arabia, but the Saudi government was refusing to cooperate. After the invasion of Iraq, they completely changed their position. We did not invade Saudi Arabia directly because of fear that the fall of the Saudi government would disrupt oil supplies: a global disaster.

Hope this helps. If it does not give you the credibiliity you desire then I hope you can provide some proof that the article is in error. Thanks.

By April, the United States had another important consideration on its plate: the deteriorating situation in Saudi Arabia. The United States was the primary cause of that deterioration. It had forced the Saudi government to crack down on al Qaeda in the kingdom, and the radical Islamists were striking back at the regime. An incipient civil war was under way and intensifying. Contrary to myth, the United States did not intervene in Iraq over oil -- anyone looking at U.S. behavior over the past year can see the desultory efforts on behalf of the Iraqi oil industry -- but the United States had to be concerned about the security of oil shipments from Saudi Arabia. If those were disrupted, the global economy would go reeling. It was one thing to put pressure on the Saudis; it was another thing to accept a civil war as the price of that pressure. And it was yet another thing to think calmly about the fall of the House of Saud. But taking Saudi oil off the market was not acceptable.

Given that the Taliban's ability to project their vision beyond their borders was nil mand given the ease with which they were dislodged once someone decided to do something about them shows how small time they were.

Taliban are an Afgani group. Much like we Canadians are confined to our country but support democracy the world over.

And yet it hasn't happened. If we are, as you seem to think, a hair's breadth away from the Caliphate, what the hell are they waiting for?

As I think? What are you on where you have to put words in other's mouths? We are not, and are not even close to being a hair's breadth away from that. Mostely because the War on Terror has been sucessful much to your chagrin.

So, like the Taliban they can grab a patch of dirt as long as they face no significant opposition. Hardly the stuff of empires.

Uh uh. Then like the Taliban they help out organizations that wish to reach further like Al Queda. Dam, you getting smart fast.

I'm saying the terrorists are not an existensial threat. They never were. The war in Iraq was a distraction, a rallying point for the Islamists, a waste of resources targeting an impotent dictator. IOW, your caliming victory in a war against an enemy that was never athreat in the first place.

What's an Islamist? Why would they rally? Who are they and where did they come from and what are their goals? And, did not Saddam invade other countries and posses WMDs and not prove he was in complence with UN resolutions? And did not Al Queda, supported by the Taliban attack the US and has cells across the Middle East. And what are the goals of the people who follow the same idealology of AL Queda in that they believe it so much that they kill themselves, and other Muslims in acts of terror?

[Black Dog]

If it does not give you the credibiliity you desire then I hope you can provide some proof that the article is in error. Thanks.

Uh, so you have one guy with letters after his name saying the same thing you are. I'm looking for some kind of documentation here, not another guy's opinion.

Uh uh. Then like the Taliban they help out organizations that wish to reach further like Al Queda. Dam, you getting smart fast.

Thank goodness, then, that "There is no group that are Jihadists."

Time for a flashback!

Some parts of the country are in the hands of the "jihadists" as you call them,

Which part? Name it and tell us all who the supporters are or retract. There is a reason why I know this is a crap staement so lets see your proof.

Devlin reports that there are no functioning Iraqi government institutions in Anbar, leaving a vacuum that has been filled by the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Iraq, which has become the province's most significant political force, said the Army officer, who has read the report. Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair; a third said it concludes that the United States has lost in Anbar.

[KrustyKidd]

Uh, so you have one guy with letters after his name saying the same thing you are. I'm looking for some kind of documentation here, not another guy's opinion.

Uh not exactly. He is the head of Stratfor

"Providing strategic intelligence on global business, economic, security and geopolitical affairs.

Stratfor - the world's leading private intelligence firm -- provides corporations, governments and individuals with geopolitical analysis and forecasts that enable them to manage risk and anticipate political, economic and security issues vital to their interests."

Time - Voted Stratfor “Best Intelligence Web Site” in 2003 and ranked it in the Top 50 best Web sites.

Men's Journal- Ranked in the Top “100 Best Websites for Guys,” 2004. “Big-picture strategic analysis. More useful than ever due to its often accurate political forecasts.”

Media Mentions:

Fortune Magazine- “Stratfor Inc., is one of the elite but low-profile private intelligence agencies that are increasingly relied upon by multinational corporations, private investors, hedge funds, and even the government's own spy agencies for analysis of geopolitical risks.”

BARRON's- “A private quasi-CIA, Stratfor has enjoyed an increasing vogue in recent years as a result of its heady forecasts and many news breaks.”

Wall Street Journal- “The market's obsession with geopolitics is just the latest development in the changing nature of the research business on Wall Street ... firms such as Stratfor have begun to fill the void.”

Charles Gibson, ABC News- “Often able to uncover the globe's best kept secrets and predict world-changing events in ways that no one else can.”

Thank goodness, then, that "There is no group that are Jihadists."

You know there as as you say "Some parts of the country are in the hands of the "jihadists" as you call them,"

In case there is confusion Black Dog. Jihadists is a generic term denoting people that fight using terrorist tactics in order to move towards recreating the Caliphate. There is a group known as Al Queda that is Jihadist as there are many individuals in loose groups all working towards the same goal -

From your article;

As Al Qaeda and its allies prepare to spread their global jihad to Central Asia, the Caucasus and other parts of the Middle East, they will carry with them the accumulated experience and lessons of the past five years. The West and its regional allies are not prepared to match them.

Recreating the Caliphate. Check. Better let Black Dog in on the secret.

So, you didn't answer "What's an Islamist? Why would they rally? Who are they and where did they come from and what are their goals? And, did not Saddam invade other countries and posses WMDs and not prove he was in complence with UN resolutions? And did not Al Queda, supported by the Taliban attack the US and has cells across the Middle East. And what are the goals of the people who follow the same idealology of AL Queda in that they believe it so much that they kill themselves, and other Muslims in acts of terror?"

Devlin reports that there are no functioning Iraqi government institutions in Anbar, leaving a vacuum that has been filled by the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Iraq, which has become the province's most significant political force, said the Army officer, who has read the report. Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair; a third said it concludes that the United States has lost in Anbar.

This quote is from his boss.

The Devlin assessment was made in mid-August.

Before the telephone interview, Zilmer issued a written and a video statement.

"Recent media reports fail to accurately capture the entirety and complexity of the current situation," Zilmer said in his written statement.

He added that the assessment "which has been referred to in these reports, was intended to focus on the causes of the insurgency. It was not intended to address the positive effects Coalition and Iraqi forces have achieved on the security environment over the past years."

Zilmer acknowledged, however, that "there is an active insurgency in Anbar. The enemy we face has no concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people, nor any peaceful vision for their future. We believe the Iraqi people want something more and are willing to fight and die for it."

Now, here is wisdom Black Dog. The reason I know the area is not in the hands of Al Queda or any Jihadist group for that matter is that those people cannot survive without support from the Sunni population. If you read the article it says what I know and that is that the Sunnis are in control. Now, the wisdom lies in the Sunni leadership. If they get what they want on the political front, they slow support for the Jihadists or, as you like to call them, 'Islamists.' If they need to apply more pressure on Baghdad, they open up the 'Ratline' again but, they do not turn over power to the Islamists, Jihadists or whatever name you have for those who wish to recreate the Caliphate as the Jihadists are a threat to the Sunni leadership once they have acheived their goals as they wish to take over with their brand of leadership and hence, can only operate with their permission. For a Sunni community to simply turn over the reins of power to any Jihadist group, crew or gaggle is not on.

[Black Dog]

Uh not exactly. He is the head of Stratfor

And that excuses him from providing any citations? Fact is, Saudi Arabia was knuckling under to U.S. pressure before Iraq was invaded. The Riyhad compound bombings in 2003 also spurred them on. Iraq was uneccesary.

Recreating the Caliphate. Check. Better let Black Dog in on the secret.

I think I see the source of the disconnect here. What I've been arguing against all along is the feasability of the jihadist goals. You seem to think that simply enumerating those goals is proof that they are achievable. The jihadist movement has no political element. It offers no vision beyond "the Caliphate", which is not a feasable goal. It lacks organization, it lacks popular support from a broad spectrum of society (they are a minority even among conservative Muslims). In short, it lacks just about every element shared by any successful political/ideological movement. On its own, its a dead end. Thankfully for them we gave them Iraq to play with.

So, you didn't answer "What's an Islamist? Why would they rally? Who are they and where did they come from and what are their goals? blah blah blah

That's okay. You didn't answer my question: "Name a successful ideological revolution that has occurred without a central force to give it expression or a large base of popular support."

[KrustyKidd]

And that excuses him from providing any citations? Fact is, Saudi Arabia was knuckling under to U.S. pressure before Iraq was invaded. The Riyhad compound bombings in 2003 also spurred them on. Iraq was uneccesary.

He has a few hundred analyists working for him and his organization. You want the quotes, pay the three grand for a membership. As for your theory, prove it. I think that accolades from the Time and a a half dozen other high profile publications should satisfy you but then again, denial is a river in Egypt right?

I think I see the source of the disconnect here. What I've been arguing against all along is the feasability of the jihadist goals. You seem to think that simply enumerating those goals is proof that they are achievable. The jihadist movement has no political element. It offers no vision beyond "the Caliphate", which is not a feasable goal. It lacks organization, it lacks popular support from a broad spectrum of society (they are a minority even among conservative Muslims). In short, it lacks just about every element shared by any successful political/ideological movement. On its own, its a dead end. Thankfully for them we gave them Iraq to play with.

They enjoyed wide support in Saudi Arabia before that was nipped in the bud. Right now they are pretty loved in Pakistan.

The jihadist movement has no political element.

Of course not. And, they probably never will as they continually errode governments until their clerics work with other clerics to mould it the way they want then the combination of attacks and charity sway public opinion to their liking and it morphs into a different type of organization. If you are looking for a goverment of guys wearing belt bombs making decisions with the UN that is not going to occur.

That's okay. You didn't answer my question: "Name a successful ideological revolution that has occurred without a central force to give it expression or a large base of popular support."

Islam, Democracy, femenist movement, Christianity, PLO, Hamas, gay rights, minority rights, Hezbollah, Nazi Party, Communism and just about every revolution that has come around had squat for support from the people until a certain stage. All started small and got big. This particular one has a lot going for it, far more than the others. It has race, religion, common enemies and a cultural war with them on one side and the percieved oppressors on the other. To say they don't have a large base of support is only a matter of time if not taken on now as we have seen by their popularity in Saudi society and, they hope to gain that bit by bit hence, it is not a hair's breadth away but could've been had Saudi Arabia not joined in actively in the War on Terror.

Anyhow. Please answer

"What's an Islamist? Why would they rally? Who are they and where did they come from and what are their goals? blah blah blah

Oh, and you forgot to adress this;

Devlin reports that there are no functioning Iraqi government institutions in Anbar, leaving a vacuum that has been filled by the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Iraq, which has become the province's most significant political force, said the Army officer, who has read the report. Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair; a third said it concludes that the United States has lost in Anbar.

And my reply of;

The Devlin assessment was made in mid-August.

Before the telephone interview, Zilmer issued a written and a video statement.

"Recent media reports fail to accurately capture the entirety and complexity of the current situation," Zilmer said in his written statement.

He added that the assessment "which has been referred to in these reports, was intended to focus on the causes of the insurgency. It was not intended to address the positive effects Coalition and Iraqi forces have achieved on the security environment over the past years."

Zilmer acknowledged, however, that "there is an active insurgency in Anbar. The enemy we face has no concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people, nor any peaceful vision for their future. We believe the Iraqi people want something more and are willing to fight and die for it."

Now, here is wisdom Black Dog. The reason I know the area is not in the hands of Al Queda or any Jihadist group for that matter is that those people cannot survive without support from the Sunni population. If you read the article it says what I know and that is that the Sunnis are in control. Now, the wisdom lies in the Sunni leadership. If they get what they want on the political front, they slow support for the Jihadists or, as you like to call them, 'Islamists.' If they need to apply more pressure on Baghdad, they open up the 'Ratline' again but, they do not turn over power to the Islamists, Jihadists or whatever name you have for those who wish to recreate the Caliphate as the Jihadists are a threat to the Sunni leadership once they have acheived their goals as they wish to take over with their brand of leadership and hence, can only operate with their permission. For a Sunni community to simply turn over the reins of power to any Jihadist group, crew or gaggle is not on.

Now, please take into account that you actually said this;

Some parts of the country are in the hands of the "jihadists" as you call them,

To which I asked ""Which part for crying out loud? Come on, the entire forum population is dying with suspense. Stand that comment down or provide the proof.""

To which you replied;

Fine. Withdrawn. But primarily because I erred it not getting clarification as to what the nonsense term "jihadis" means

Then, you come across a story where you think you have a point, you bring it up again rather than leave it withdrawn. And when I blow it out of the water, you don't bother mentioning it again. Stop wasting time and deal with the discussion rather than try to fabricate things to make your incorect and emotional beliefs fact.

[Black Dog]

He has a few hundred analyists working for him and his organization. You want the quotes, pay the three grand for a membership. As for your theory, prove it. I think that accolades from the Time and a a half dozen other high profile publications should satisfy you but then again, denial is a river in Egypt right?

In logic, the above is what's known as a plea to authority and its a fallacy. So please: let's see some documentation. (BTW: Hmmm...your Friedman also says Iraq is in a state of civil war. But then, what does he know. )

As for "my theory", what theory is that?

They enjoyed wide support in Saudi Arabia before that was nipped in the bud. Right now they are pretty loved in Pakistan.

How wide, how loved? Are you talking active support or passive aproval of their beliefs?

Islam, Democracy, femenist movement, Christianity, PLO, Hamas, gay rights, minority rights, Hezbollah, Nazi Party, Communism and just about every revolution that has come around had squat for support from the people until a certain stage. All started small and got big. This particular one has a lot going for it, far more than the others. It has race, religion, common enemies and a cultural war with them on one side and the percieved oppressors on the other. To say they don't have a large base of support is only a matter of time if not taken on now as we have seen by their popularity in Saudi society and, they hope to gain that bit by bit hence, it is not a hair's breadth away but could've been had Saudi Arabia not joined in actively in the War on Terror.

All those other movements (I would disregard religious movements) were explicity political: they offered a set of solutions, which is how they were able to tap into popular support. The jiahdis aren't big on building bridges or offering any solutions. That's their flaw. If they can develop a political program or evolve into something like Hizbullah, then they will be a more serious threat. They ain't there yet.

"What's an Islamist? Why would they rally? Who are they and where did they come from and what are their goals? blah blah blah

Islamist=jihadist.

Now, here is wisdom Black Dog. The reason I know the area is not in the hands of Al Queda or any Jihadist group for that matter is that those people cannot survive without support from the Sunni population. If you read the article it says what I know and that is that the Sunnis are in control. Now, the wisdom lies in the Sunni leadership. If they get what they want on the political front, they slow support for the Jihadists or, as you like to call them, 'Islamists.' If they need to apply more pressure on Baghdad, they open up the 'Ratline' again but, they do not turn over power to the Islamists, Jihadists or whatever name you have for those who wish to recreate the Caliphate as the Jihadists are a threat to the Sunni leadership once they have acheived their goals as they wish to take over with their brand of leadership and hence, can only operate with their permission. For a Sunni community to simply turn over the reins of power to any Jihadist group, crew or gaggle is not on.

Ahem:

As long as the insurgency rages here, it is unlikely that Sunni Arab politicians in Baghdad can win over significant numbers of Sunnis to support the government of national unity, which took office May 20.

I would question whether the Sunni leadership really has the tools to put an end to the insurgency. If the jihadists are what you say they are, then they are not beholden to the Sunni political interests nor would they be pawns in their game. Your problem is you are conflating Sunni political leadership with Sunni popular support. If, as the original report suggests, the jihadists have improved their political situation by garnering ome degre eof popular support, then neither the Sunni leadership in Baghdad nor the U.S. military will be able to root them out easily. It's interesting that you are scoffing at the possibility of Iraq turning into what you say Pakistan is and Saudi Arabia was.

[KrustyKidd]

In logic, the above is what's known as a plea to authority and its a fallacy. So please: let's see some documentation. (BTW: Hmmm...your Friedman also says Iraq is in a state of civil war. But then, what does he know. )

Documentation? You mean some Saudi Prince comming out and saying "We are scared of the US so we had to crack down on Al Queda? Won't find it anywhere but in intelligence circles Black Dog. And, if one of the top intelligence agencies is not good enough for you then I take it Ehsan Ahrari (PhD, Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst.) is not either.

Regime change, al-Qaeda style

The credit for al-Qaeda's seeming decision to intensify its battle with Saudi Arabia goes to the Bush administration, its decision to topple Saddam, and its heightened rhetoric of regime change in the Middle East. What is significantly different now is that, in the aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq, no potential target of regime change will view the US's rhetoric as empty talk.

This reality has to have its effect on Saudi Arabia. Not that it would become a target of regime change, but it will have no choice but to examine its ties with the Wahhabi sect, and that sect's contentious notion of jihad. Rulers in Riyadh will have to take substantive actions with a view to bringing about radical change within their borders. That process may not take place imminently, but it cannot be postponed indefinitely either.

The civil war point is crap as is most of your dodges in your losing arguments. The article states;

Second, the insurgency threatened Iraq with partition and civil war. Any such partition would have made Iran the dominant power in the region, ...

Hardly a confirmation of anything particularily since most articles from any publication save biased lefties say it is possible, imminent, likely, unlikely or as Koffee Annan said the other day 'possible.'

As for "my theory", what theory is that?

Your theory of why Saudi Arabia, after decades of appeasing Radical Jihadists suddenly took action.

How wide, how loved? Are you talking active support or passive aproval of their beliefs?

Support for al-Qaeda

(CNN) -- Almost half of all Saudis said in a poll conducted last year that they have a favorable view of Osama bin Laden's sermons and rhetoric, but fewer than 5 percent thought it was a good idea for bin Laden to rule the Arabian Peninsula.

Pakistan

Pakistan is not undergoing a process of Talibanization at this time, but there is an alarming and very militant minority who favor extremist visions of Islam. The failure of the state education system in the 1980s and 1990s left a vacuum that was filled by extreme madrassas, many of which teach jihad and a virulent anti-Western version of Islam. "Jihadist" sentiments were accelerated by the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan - a struggle funded by Western and Saudi money and run from the currently pro-Taliban areas of Pakistan. It is hardly surprising that its extreme ideology resonates with some Pakistanis, particularly in the northern and western areas.

Democratization - admittedly a tepid effort - carries with it the inevitable danger of members of the opposition being elected, which has complicated the political process and led to the election of pro-Taliban regional governments in the west.

It is conceivable that poor domestic decisions can make the threat greater in the near term, but my own feeling is that Talibanization is a distant, worst-case prospect of relatively low likelihood in the next 5-10 years. Engaging closely with President Musharraf - the post 9-11 policy - appears to be a hedge against Talibanization by the US, and may be one of the best options to prevent a future Pakistani collapse.

All those other movements (I would disregard religious movements) were explicity political

Al Queda and the rest of the Jihadists are religious and seek a religious movement so yes, it is relevent and should not be disreguarded. You really are funny Black Dog.

Islamist=jihadist.

Excellent. Now, Why would they rally? Who are they and where did they come from and what are their goals?

As long as the insurgency rages here, it is unlikely that Sunni Arab politicians in Baghdad can win over significant numbers of Sunnis to support the government of national unity, which took office May 20.

Strange, Sunnis voted in droves. Seems they fight when they don't get what they want politically and, support Jihadists or, as you call them - Islamists when they need to ratchet up pressure.

I would question whether the Sunni leadership really has the tools to put an end to the insurgency.

Not sure what leadership you refer to. The natioanl government of Iraq or local regional Sunni leaders.

If the jihadists are what you say they are, then they are not beholden to the Sunni political interests nor would they be pawns in their game.

Yes! Now you got it! That is why they will not take over from the Sunni regioal leaders once they have filled their purpose of helping create pressure on the Iraqi government to conceede to Sunni demands.

Your problem is you are conflating Sunni political leadership with Sunni popular support. If, as the original report suggests, the jihadists have improved their political situation by garnering ome degre eof popular support, then neither the Sunni leadership in Baghdad nor the U.S. military will be able to root them out easily. It's interesting that you are scoffing at the possibility of Iraq turning into what you say Pakistan is and Saudi Arabia was.

No. You are confusing national Sunni political leadership with local. The national government has no hold or sway with the Jihadists however, the Jihadists cannot operate without the support of the Sunni people in whatever region they operate out of. And, that support would not be given unless the local Sunni leadership gives the thumbs up. And, the local leadership will not give thumbs up if they feel their rule or influence threatened by outsiders. Hence, the Jihadists are being used by the local Sunni leadership and they themselves are not in control.

[jdobbin]

U.S. may continue to boost U.S. troop levels higher.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14912976/

[KrustyKidd]

U.S. may continue to boost U.S. troop levels higher.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14912976/

Are you an actual RSS news feed or an automated update of some sort? Got a point or an argument of some kind that we can respond to, please post it, if just taking up band width then you're not welcome here.

[jdobbin]

Are you an actual RSS news feed or an automated update of some sort? Got a point or an argument of some kind that we can respond to, please post it, if just taking up band width then you're not welcome here.

My point is that the Pentagon and Rumsfeld said that at this time last year, troop levels would be reduced.

And who are you to say who is welcome and who is not? If you have a problem, report it to the moderator.

[KrustyKidd]

My point is that the Pentagon and Rumsfeld said that at this time last year, troop levels would be reduced.

And who are you to say who is welcome and who is not? If you have a problem, report it to the moderator.

You posted a news article and gave no opinion or personal view. How are we supposed to know what point you were making when all there is is a link to an article.

As for being welcome to post articles without qualifying them, suppose I posted links to porn sites and rock videos. I suppose I would be as welcome as quoting the city section of the Calgary Herald too. IOWSs, explain what the hell the article has to do with anything or, provide your opinin to provide something to discuss.

[jdobbin]

You posted a news article and gave no opinion or personal view. How are we supposed to know what point you were making when all there is is a link to an article.

As for being welcome to post articles without qualifying them, suppose I posted links to porn sites and rock videos. I suppose I would be as welcome as quoting the city section of the Calgary Herald too. IOWSs, explain what the hell the article has to do with anything or, provide your opinin to provide something to discuss.

If the moderator felt it was inappropriate then I would certainly wouldn't do it. I've never seen anything to indicate that it against rules.

As I said, report it to the moderator next time.

I have no feeling one way or the other what links you post or if you offer comments on them.

[Black Dog]

Documentation? You mean some Saudi Prince comming out and saying "We are scared of the US so we had to crack down on Al Queda? Won't find it anywhere but in intelligence circles Black Dog.

Must be why I haven't found it in any other circles. You, I suppose, have access to that rarified company I'm sure...

And, if one of the top intelligence agencies is not good enough for you then I take it Ehsan Ahrari (PhD, Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst.) is not either.

Like I said, It's an opinion.

The credit for al-Qaeda's seeming decision to intensify its battle with Saudi Arabia goes to the Bush administration, its decision to topple Saddam, and its heightened rhetoric of regime change in the Middle East. What is significantly different now is that, in the aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq, no potential target of regime change will view the US's rhetoric as empty talk.

We're now three years on. I think in the aftermath of regime change in Iraq and how that worked out, more regimes are going to see U.S. rhetoric as empty talk.

Almost half of all Saudis said in a poll conducted last year that they have a favorable view of Osama bin Laden's sermons and rhetoric, but fewer than 5 percent thought it was a good idea for bin Laden to rule the Arabian Peninsula.

So a small minority would actually support the jihadis. Which pretty much lines up with what I've been saying.

Al Queda and the rest of the Jihadists are religious and seek a religious movement so yes, it is relevent and should not be disreguarded. You really are funny Black Dog.

Al Qaeda is not Islam, not is it Christianity. Al Qaeda is a political movement in that it seeks political changes, but it lacks a political program beyond sharia law and the Caliphate.

No. You are confusing national Sunni political leadership with local. The national government has no hold or sway with the Jihadists however, the Jihadists cannot operate without the support of the Sunni people in whatever region they operate out of. And, that support would not be given unless the local Sunni leadership gives the thumbs up. And, the local leadership will not give thumbs up if they feel their rule or influence threatened by outsiders. Hence, the Jihadists are being used by the local Sunni leadership and they themselves are not in control.

Make up you rmind. Either jihadis are a force or they aren't. If they are so marginal in Iraq that they can be manipulated by the locals, then they pose no threat. One would assume too, that the same dynamic of popular support applies in other countries, yet there's little to suggest they have that tangible popular support.

[KrustyKidd]

Must be why I haven't found it in any other circles.

Yes, no surprise. Hanging around in the 'no blood for oil' crowd and chanting the Bush invaded Iraq because Saddam tried to off his dad won't get you far in the real world.

You, I suppose, have access to that rarified company I'm sure...

Yes. I have access to the Stratfor site. If there is an article you wold like, let me know and I will send it to you privately.

Like I said, It's an opinion.

Unbiased opinion using intelligence agencies and contacts and, privy to just as much information and probably better culled and analyized than any other private source available. So, you have counter sources that have any credibility now that you basicly trashed any source you could ever muster by continuously raising the bar from "Any evidence Iraq was the factor? Any at all?" to requiring a video taped interview with some Saudi Prince saying they were scared the US was going to get them so they took on a popular movement within their borders for the first time. Yes, I can see why you didn't get that one out of your liberal opinion columns or for that matter, any publication as it would never happen.

We're now three years on. I think in the aftermath of regime change in Iraq and how that worked out, more regimes are going to see U.S. rhetoric as empty talk.

Why is that? Seems many think errently that the US has regime changing designs on Iran, Syria and so on and forth. Even some on this forum think that Iran should have the right to have nukes to stop the US from taking such action. Maybe if I searched, I could find those or similar words comming from a post or two of yours.

So a small minority would actually support the jihadis. Which pretty much lines up with what I've been saying.

Half have a favouable view. A small minority indeed! As for five percent thinking OBL should rule, it's moot as his intention is not to rule but to create conditions for the Caliphate. Al Qaeda is Jihadist military arm of Conservative Wahabbism which desires to restore the Caliphate. They are not politicians or administrators. They are warriors. Remember I said that there never would be a country composed of belt bombers. It is a means to rock the existing system in order to separate population from government and keep at it until a government of their liking can take over.

Another brief article on why they are popular in SA.

"The real danger facing the Saudi state -- unlike other societies that have faced terrorist incidents -- is the presence of wide circles of sympathy for the 'deviant group' among different groups of citizens," Bin Othaymeen wrote.

Most analysts say the reasons for militancy in Saudi Arabia lie in institutionalised anti-Westernism in the country's austere Wahhabi form of Islam and the education system.

Al Qaeda is not Islam, not is it Christianity. Al Qaeda is a political movement in that it seeks political changes, but it lacks a political program beyond sharia law and the Caliphate.

Islam tells you what to wear, which hand to wipe your ass with, what to say, when to say it, who to follow, who to lead and how to live life. It is more than a religion, it is an all encompassing guide to everything. The Caliphate is the society that these guys wish to recreate so is more than a religious and political movement. It is everything including social engineering. So, yes it is religion, yes it is political and yes it is social.

Make up you rmind. Either jihadis are a force or they aren't. If they are so marginal in Iraq that they can be manipulated by the locals, then they pose no threat.

They are a force that can change certain societies. Ours, they cannot as democracy is in place and people are unlikely to be swayed to their side. In Iraq, there is opportunity for all providing they get their way and an opportunity to use the freedom that Regime Change has provided. While there is a chance that Jihadists can overcome the odds there to become an actual popular force, it is slim as there are so many balls in play for the population to choose from. In areas where the Jihadist infrstation occurs, they are strangers from foreign lands and unlikely to have the power to usurp the local heads of goverment (clerics etc) As wsell, being a terrorist full time does not put food on the table so, they need the support of the locals in some way shape or form. That support will not be given except by permission from the local leaders. Now, ask yourself why the local leaders would give this support and set themselves up for replacement by young firebrand foregners. Only two logical answers; they either perscribe to the idea of the Caliphate which I find doubtfull as there would be a much stronger Jihadist movement in Iraq or, they are only using them to make waves for the national government in Baghdad to grant more concessions. In any case, they are not a very large threat in that country as, what seems to work against them is individual or societal opportunity. A reoccuring theme in the War on Terror idealology.

Here is some wisdom for you.

(Saudai Arabia)

Analysts cite several reasons for Al Qaeda's appeal. There is high unemployment, an uneven distribution of wealth, and a lack of alternative sources for peaceful dissent, says Fahd al-Shafi, a former extremist who knew Miqrin in the 1990s.

"If the situation remains as it is, what's to stop young people from resorting to violence?" says Mr. Shafi, who spent time in jail for opposition activities and is now a civil servant.

"Some people join these groups, not because they like them, but out of frustration with the current situation," he adds. "We need more social, political, and religious freedoms."

One would assume too, that the same dynamic of popular support applies in other countries, yet there's little to suggest they have that tangible popular support.

No. In countries where they have actual appeal you will note that there is only two choices - that of the regime in place or death. These choices are kept in the top two by torture and Stalinist police state tactics along with a public and oft repeated Islamic rhetoric of anti America and Israel.

[KrustyKidd]

If the moderator felt it was inappropriate then I would certainly wouldn't do it. I've never seen anything to indicate that it against rules.

Look harder please.

POSTING CONTENT

All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted.

Your posts in question contain only a link and a sentence describing the link. The ones I have observed interupt an active discussion. If you place some opinion along with it or use it to refute or strengthen one of the points being discussed then it would not be in violation.

[jdobbin]

If the moderator felt it was inappropriate then I would certainly wouldn't do it. I've never seen anything to indicate that it against rules.

I won't post a just a link again. I trust that you'll report others to the moderator if you see it happening.

There are a lot of rules violations out there. A signature is supposed to be under 6 lines and we see far more than that in many of our finest posters.

[KrustyKidd]

I won't post a just a link again. I trust that you'll report others to the moderator if you see it happening.

I never would as I believe you intended well and did find those articles good. Please don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with posting links, just give something to debate with.

Rules are only guidelines and I just figured your posts that were in question didn't make sense so when you brought up the point of taking it to a moderator or finding a rule that said it was wrong I showed you the section that it would fall under as I certainly don't believe that you meant wrong or to be disruptinve therefore, a moderator is not required.My only point is please back up those articles with a viewpoint of somekind that others can grab onto and I actually look forward to it.

[jdobbin]

It has been a terrible start to the month in Iraq. The amount of U.S. soldiers being killed has doubled and the attacks on civilians are increased as well.

http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=10-2006

The Iraqi police are growing frustrated and one brigade has been pulled for kidnapping and killing people.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/04/...main/index.html

Woodward's book on Rumsfeld has the Pentagon all tied up in knots and even the former British Foreign Secretary is categorizing the situation as dire.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/29...traw/index.html

More and more U.S. troops have been rushed into Baghdad but the violence still goes on unabated.

You have to wonder if the situation can now be categorized as civil war.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15124922/

[jdobbin]

John Warner, one of the top Republicans in the Senate has come back from Iraq and gives a pretty dismal assessment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15155638/

ABC was saying that there are three choices.

1.) Increase American troop numbers dramatically.

2.) Begin a phased withdrawal and let Iraq take ownership of its sectarian violence.

3.) Status quo. Be patient.

[jdobbin]

British General calls for pull-out.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/12/...eral/index.html

He also says the Americans are reconsidering their position as well.

I wonder if Bush will announce a pull-out to help him win the election.

[KrustyKidd]

I wonder if Bush will announce a pull-out to help him win the election.

Slow down a bit please. One of the main basis for presidential elections and US politics is that a presient may only have two terms. Bush is halfway though his second now so there won't be another.

Thanks.

[jdobbin]

I wonder if Bush will announce a pull-out to help him win the election.

Slow down a bit please. One of the main basis for presidential elections and US politics is that a presient may only have two terms. Bush is halfway though his second now so there won't be another.

Thanks.

I was referring to the mid-terms. So many of Republican allies are asking for a change of course that I wouldn't be surprised to hear about a staged pull-out before the election.