I'll make this short and sweet. There were a couple of captured documents that the Iraqi "insurgents" have written to one another. They're frustrated. They can't make a dent in Iraq. The mood in Iraq is that the "insurgents" are a painful nuisance not this omnipotent threat. They've been pounding against the U.S. and Iraqi forces yet both are able to replace their losses and keep on coming. The "insurgents" are having trouble coming up with "holy warriors" to keep the insurgency alive. Recruitment at the mosques has been flat. The "insurgents" have acknowledged that they have engaged "media campaign" one of these things we are all are familiar with, the "insurgents" explode a car bomb or I.E.D. and the news reaches the U.S. This was done in the hopes of sapping American morale and forcing the U.S. to retreat, but this hasn't happened. Problem with that strategy is that they've taken no ground, and they don't have areas or territories in which to operate from. In short, U.S. forces and the Iraqi police/military are winning the war in Iraq.

So, why has this not been given widespread news coverage in the media? Dammit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/world/middleeast/09zarqawi.html


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/MAC873285.htm

So, why has this not been given widespread news coverage in the media? Dammit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/world/middleeast/09zarqawi.html


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/MAC873285.htm

Darth...you linked to an article in the New York Times...I saw a blurb on the nightly news...John Stewart joked about it last night on The Daily Show...how much more coverage do you want? :D

Well gee, Vile, if Joh Stewart had his say on the matter what more could I possibly want? Dammit.

You really don't hear good news like this from the media. The Economy is doing ver well, including the stock market, but you don't hear it on CNN.

I'll make this short and sweet. There were a couple of captured documents that the Iraqi "insurgents" have written to one another. They're frustrated. They can't make a dent in Iraq. The mood in Iraq is that the "insurgents" are a painful nuisance not this omnipotent threat. They've been pounding against the U.S. and Iraqi forces yet both are able to replace their losses and keep on coming. The "insurgents" are having trouble coming up with "holy warriors" to keep the insurgency alive. Recruitment at the mosques has been flat. The "insurgents" have acknowledged that they have engaged "media campaign" one of these things we are all are familiar with, the "insurgents" explode a car bomb or I.E.D. and the news reaches the U.S. This was done in the hopes of sapping American morale and forcing the U.S. to retreat, but this hasn't happened. Problem with that strategy is that they've taken no ground, and they don't have areas or territories in which to operate from. In short, U.S. forces and the Iraqi police/military are winning the war in Iraq.

So, why has this not been given widespread news coverage in the media? Dammit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/world/middleeast/09zarqawi.html


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/MAC873285.htm

heh...apparently darth doesn't think the NYTimes is big enough...

Of course he ignore the cause of this. The US has secretly been pushing for civil war in the country. It was Nergopontes speciality, the salvador option... And all of the random dead Iraqis that had been taken away by Iraqi police started immediatly after negroponte left the country. Quite the coincidence...

The NY Times went wall to wall with Joe Wilson when the Superspy thing started. This insurgent story is huge. Let's see how long the coverage continues.

It's about damn time...

this up to the people there to make up there minds to want PEACE>

This insurgent story is huge.The story is about al-Qaeda, not the insurgency as a whole. For months now there have been reports (Guerilla has posted some) that al-Qaeda has worn out it's welcome with the major insurgent groups, and they've certainly alienated the people they must live among. The defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq will be good news for everyone excepting, of course, themselves. But this is not the same thing as defeating the insurgency. I think the biggest story in Iraq right now is that the partisan militias have so far confined themselves to small scale operations like death squad murders, and have yet to face each other in open combat. As long as they can be restrained it's possible to avoid a full-blown civil war.

The mood in Iraq is that the "insurgents" are a painful nuisance not this omnipotent threat. ....In short, U.S. forces and the Iraqi police/military are winning the war in Iraq.

So, why has this not been given widespread news coverage in the media? Dammit.

The story of the insurgency's weakening is all over the internet, and you can bet if the national paper of record, the N.Y. Times, is running it then it is or wil be everywhere shortly.

But the REAL unreported story that the Corporate-owned media is ignoring is this;

Various studies suggest that the violence has increased yearly since the U.S. invasion. Iraq Body Count, a British anti-war group, said more than 12,600 Iraqi civilians were killed in the year ending March 1, up 10 percent from the previous year and about double the total for the first year after the U.S. invaded.

Does anybody doubt that we would win against a band of insurgents? So long as we don't turn and run then there is no chance that we could lose in the long run.

.....then there is no chance that we could lose in the long run.Great point. Unfortunately, the long run to some is about six to eight months.

"It's not about size, or manpower, or how many guns you have; all you need to do to win is show that you have more will than your opponent."

- The Usual Suspects

This is what guerilla fighting is all about. When there's no hope of direct victory, your only chance is to wear out your opponent through attrition. At that point, it's just about who cares more. It was done in the Revolutionary War, when the Indians in Florida resisted eviction, Korea, Afghanistan (the first one), Vietnam, and now Iraq. While it seems the big powers have a bad track record with this sort of thing, there is a key difference. The insurgents here are mostly foreigners who are not fighting for independence, but an ideological "holy war." The Iraqi government is already independent, whereas these other wars were fought to attain/preseve soverignty.

The insurgents here are mostly foreigners who are not fighting for independence, but an ideological "holy war."

posted September 23, 2005 at 10:30 a.m.

The 'myth' of Iraq's foreign fighters
Report by US think tank says only '4 to 10' percent of insurgents are foreigners.

By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

The US and Iraqi governments have vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, and most of them don't come from Saudi Arabia, according to a new report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS). According to a piece in The Guardian, this means the US and Iraq "feed the myth" that foreign fighters are the backbone of the insurgency. While the foreign fighters may stoke the insurgency flames, they make up only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.

The CSIS study also disputes media reports that Saudis are the largest group of foreign fighters. CSIS says "Algerians are the largest group (20 percent), followed by Syrians (18 percent), Yemenis (17 percent), Sudanese (15 percent), Egyptians (13 percent), Saudis (12 percent) and those from other states (5 percent)." CSIS gathered the information for its study from intelligence sources in the Gulf region.

Rest of article (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html)

Eventually the Iraqi people will tire of the insurgents. They know the US will leave once the insurgency is over. Probably only a tiny fraction of Iraqi's support or are involved with the insurgency.

Instead of reducing troops we should dramatically increase them just to make the point that their actions are not working.

Iraq has it's own government, it's a sovereign state. The US is not trying annex Iraq like the Russians did with Afghanistan. It's a whole lot different - the insurgents don't have a solid position, their actions simply prolongs the time before they achieve what it is they say the are fighting for - the US leaving.

Islam wants a victory very badly. To see the US off would be a victory & it is not a victory we should nor can allow them to have.

We must get out as fast as possible, but we need to crush the insurgents first. If that takes another 250,000 troops then send them so we can get this over with.

Iraq has it's own government, it's a sovereign state. The US is not trying annex Iraq like the Russians did with Afghanistan. It's a whole lot different -

Oh puuuhleeeze.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Iraq Is under Colonial Rule

<snip>

Iraq, like most Middle Eastern countries was rife with problems even before American tanks rolled into Baghdad in March 2003.

But much, if not all, of the country’s misfortunes — at least ones that BBC, CNN and Aljazeera would find newsworthy — are either created by the occupation or are exasperated by its presence.

To pretend that the Iraqi resistance is not in fact a violent retaliation against a much more violent military invasion, is to defy reality.

Of course, the US administration insists on doing exactly that: still speaking of a foreign espoused ‘insurgency’, engineered by the shadowy figure of a Jordanian terrorist, who seems to appear in so many different locations all at once.

To address Iraq’s economic ills without addressing 10 years of devastating sanctions, followed by a destructive war, invasion and a domineering military occupation, that was precisely set forth to deprive Iraq of its right over its own natural resources, is also to defy reality.

One must be badly informed to keep on believing in Washington’s hopeless slogans of liberating Iraq for the Iraqis, as a model of Arab democracy and so forth, while ignoring the most obvious fact that it was Iraq’s immense economic wealth and its strategic import — among other reasons — that inspired America’s Mesopotamia campaign in the first place.

How can an Iraqi government, led by Al Maliki or any other politician, confront Iraq’s economic crisis, without having complete control — physical as well as political- over the oil fields, the country’s most valuable assets and the backbone of its economy?

Moreover, to make believe that the Iraq ‘breakthrough’ could also translate into meaningful political sovereignty in a country under occupation is also to insist on negating basic facts.

The US influence over successive Iraqi leaderships since the first days of the occupation has always translated into total control over the decision making of whichever political body placed at the helm, starting with the Iraq government council, to the interim government to whichever government that is currently being concocted.

Without real control over the country’s physical space and wealth and without a serious and fully independent political role, what can any prospective Iraqi government really achieve?

How can Al Maliki and his sectarian government end the ‘insurgency’ without ending the occupation, provide jobs without decisive control over the country’s oil and make independent decisions if its political will is hostage to the US government?

So why are some Iraqis taking part in this charade any way? As devious and unconvincing as it is, many Iraqis see the current political setup as a source of hope, a starting point toward a better future for the battered country.

For others, it’s an expression of a sectarian triumph — or domination — of one group over the other.

While many Shias find such a setup beneficial, others find it unmerited, and rightly so, this will likely undermine the secular identity of Iraq in favor of religious/cultic zealots and their fanatical, authoritarian views.

For the rest, all the political wrangling that is taking place among Iraq’s political elites under US auspices in Baghdad’s Green Zone is beside the point. They are bracing for many more US military sweeps, suicide bombings, sectarian violence and the rest.

It’s indeed a pity that the media is once again coming to rescue the Bush administration, acting as if Iraq’s national resurrection can be viewed separately from the overbearing and bloody occupation of the country. It’s also regrettable that even Arab media is following the suit.

The fact of the matter is that much of the country’s ailments were a direct result of the illegal war and violence that followed. Only an end to the occupation can put Iraq on the right track toward national reconciliation and return to normality.

As long as the US government perceives its stay in Iraq as a long one, all the complementary attributes of military occupation — violence, security chaos, sectarianism and corruption — will persist, and there is little that Al Maliki, or any other politician, can do about it.---------Ramzy Baroud @ ZNet

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=10214

They can't win in the long run unless we leave. They will never win the popular support of the iraqi citizenry when those people are their main targets.

Does anybody doubt that we would win against a band of insurgents?Of course we can. We could depopulate the entire country if we wanted to; that's not the issue. The issue is whether it's worth the blood and treasure we'd have to spend to secure a 'victory'.So long as we don't turn and run then there is no chance that we could lose in the long run.So we should stay to win what, exactly? Saddam is out of power, there are no WMD's, Iraq is not a threat to America or it's allies. What's the point?

Not to worry. It's in its last throes.
No, not the insurgency. The Bush presidency.
By the way, the deadline to sign up for a Med Part D plan has come and gone.
I saw some Bush toady on some Sunday yakfest yakking about how "it's essential that we have a deadline for this!"
Yeah, well how about a fucking deadine for pulling out of Iraq?

It's not like you can just say, "Ok, we're all goin home now. Have a nice life!"
This thing will happen gradually. In all likelyhood, we will always retain some military presence in Iraq, but that's nothing new. We have military presence in lots of countries...

On the Iraqi death squads (about 2-3 minutes):

http://www.cryingwolf.deconstructingiraq.org.uk/index.html

Here we go again,it is totally impossable for the US to win in Iraq,totally impossable.How do you defeat an enemy you cant see,for a start.

Here we go again,it is totally impossable for the US to win in Iraq,totally impossable.How do you defeat an enemy you cant see,for a start.Eventually they realize that they never had the support of the population they purported to represent. Eventually they realize it was irrational bloodlust.
Eventually the young men being sacrificed by their unscathed leaders decide "this isn't for me".

Like the IRA.

I think this will be a good answer,go ahead Brooks,what about the IRA..

Its popular support probably ended before the 50's, but the violence continued.
They indicriminately killed civilians.
Their leaders left the dying to the young and impressionable (this is not unique to the IRA).

I believe we never should have gone into Iraq. Having said that I also believe since we did go into Iraq we have to stay there until Iraq has the semblance of a stable government.

For your information Brooks the 1940s and 1950s were the quietest time in the Republican campaign,but the 1960s,when Nationists were excluded from the workforce above a certain level,were excluded from social housing programmes,were excluded from going down the democratic path to change.because everytime yhey won a seat the electoral boundary was changed,so they couldnt win it again,the IRA and the Nationalist population had only one course left to them,violent reaction...

Nationists were excluded from the workforce....excluded from social housing programmes,....electoral boundary was changed....

...had only one course left to them,violent reaction...On another thread you said we (Americans) were too quick to turn to violence.

You just lost all credibility on that point.

In forceing your own National Selfinterest abroad,and your country has an entire industry devoted to armaments,thats right.Brooks violence and the threat of violence should be a last resort,especially for the country thats supposed to be 'the world leader'.

Brooks violence and the threat of violence should be a last resort,especially for the country thats supposed to be 'the world leader'.What was working against Saddam - the UN?
I think you forget that Hussein ignored 17 UN resolutions (that he had agreed at the close of the 1990 Gulf War). He was given six months of warnings. Did you forget?

What was working against Saddam - the UN?UN sanctions crippled the Iraqi economy and castrated Saddam's WMD program. He was a threat to no one other than his own people. The containment strategy was working very well.I think you forget that Hussein ignored 17 UN resolutions (that he had agreed at the close of the 1990 Gulf War). He was given six months of warnings. Did you forget?Then I guess we need to invade Israel, Turkey and Algeria as well. The United States is ignoring two UN resolutions anent Guantanamo. What should we do about that, invade ourselves?

UN sanctions crippled the Iraqi economy and castrated Saddam's WMD program. He was a threat to no one other than his own people. The containment strategy was working very well.Then I guess we need to invade Israel, Turkey and Algeria as well. The United States is ignoring two UN resolutions anent Guantanamo. What should we do about that, invade ourselves?

Quit the black and white crap Sadan.. you are making yourself sound like an idiot....

Answer me these questions:

1. Why did Saddam turn back Weapons Inspectors all the time? What was he hiding?

2. Lets look at WHAT UN resolutions are being broken.. im guessing almost EVERY COUNTRY is breaking some sort of UN resolution at any time... the thing is they are irrelevant.. AND even IF there WAS someone committing a SERIOUS break in UN rules... the UN is so corrupt that they wouldnt have the balls to do anything about it.. they might stop getting breifcases full of cash slid under the bathroom door....

Quit the black and white crap Sadan.. you are making yourself sound like an idiot....You're the expert.Why did Saddam turn back Weapons Inspectors all the time? What was he hiding?Who knows? It's possible Saddam was afraid of being invaded. He may have thought that pretending to have WMD's would make others think twice about attacking him... im guessing almost EVERY COUNTRY is breaking some sort of UN resolution at any time... the thing is they are irrelevant.. Thank you for clarifying my point. Brooks was arguing that the resolutions are relevant. I'm glad to see that you disagree with him.

Here we go again,it is totally impossable for the US to win in Iraq,totally impossable.How do you defeat an enemy you cant see,for a start.

Very clealy the US is winning. Iraq while messy is very much on the path to becoming a stable representative gov't/country.

On the plus side of the ledger we have three consecutive elections with increasing turnout from all sectors of populace.
The creation of a representative gov't that includes members from all parts of iraqi society.
The growth and maturation of an iraqi army.
Economic growth that has lifted GDP and per capita income above it's 2002 levels.
The farm sector has returned to exporting food. The first time in over 25 years.
Oil production which is expected to meet it's OPEC quota for the first time since the gulf war 1.
A free and diverse media with hundreds of newspapers and radio/TV stations.
The Brookings Iraq Index is full of tasty morsels that support the contention that the US is slowly winning.


Maybe you could cite some of the victories the sunni death squads have won?

Does that mean that Isreal should be invaded next,at least theres no doubt ,theyve said themselves they have WMDs and have probally ignored as many UN resolutions..

Does anybody doubt that we would win against a band of insurgents? So long as we don't turn and run then there is no chance that we could lose in the long run.
Drew,you know of and have heard of,the long war,it was an Irish tactic.Is it not a fact that politics in the US,rather than the insurgents,that will decide a US withdrawl in the long run.

Who knows? It's possible Saddam was afraid of being invaded.And it's also possible he had massive stockpiles.

Therein lied the world's problem. By not cooperating or being forthcoming, as was required, he allowed the world to speculate. He miscalculated and lost.