NationStates Jolt Archive

According to General Vines, former commander of the multinational force in Iraq, has reported that Al-Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda in general has conceeded defeat in Iraq. They apparently have 0 credibility because they were willing to slaughter Iraqis to attempt to provoke a civil war and because their inability to disrupt the most recent elections shows their stratagy failed.

Iran has now "taken over" in Iraq, and welcome the US presence in Iraq.... only until a Iran friendly Shiite Gov't is formed.

What do you think? If this is true, this might suddenly be the end of the Iraq War.

I will not answer your question but I will tell you a story about driving in Iraq. This is from before the invasion. I've been told that if you are a foreigner driving in Iraq and you have an accident, it is always your fault no matter what happened. This is because if you had stayed in your own country the accident would never have happened. I will now return you to your regular programming.

The Iraq war is over and has been for a few years. This is an occupation and resistance to it.

It would also be a silly thing to assume that Al Qaeda was the only organization in Iraq fighting Americans, fighting the Iraqi government, or killing civilians.

Why can't we just asassinate all the members of the current Iraqi government and put Saddam back in power?

The Iraq war is over and has been for a few years. This is an occupation and resistance to it.

It would also be a silly thing to assume that Al Qaeda was the only organization in Iraq fighting Americans, fighting the Iraqi government, or killing civilians.


Scuse me, you are right. The war in Iraq IS over for years. But now im saying the resistance is also over.

You are right that Al-Qaeda was not the only one fighting, but Al-Qaeda was providing the money, the resources, and the tactical planning to the insurgents. All the foreign fighters were pouring in because of Al-Qaeda. All that is left is the Baathist loyalists, and they know they have no hope of putting Saddam back in power.

Why can't we just asassinate all the members of the current Iraqi government and put Saddam back in power?

Too much effort.

You are right that Al-Qaeda was not the only one fighting, but Al-Qaeda was providing the money, the resources, and the tactical planning to the insurgents. All the foreign fighters were pouring in because of Al-Qaeda. All that is left is the Baathist loyalists, and they know they have no hope of putting Saddam back in power.I doubt that. Al Qaeda is not the only group in Iraq and certainly not the only source of funding. It's unrealistic to assume that the insurgency would considerably drop if Al Qaeda pulled out.

War is different to occupation. The war was won, the occupation has ongoing costs. The bulk of the insurgency at present would seem to be sectarian nationalists who want the US out so they can settle scores. They cannot be defeated as such, merely contained, at a cost.

I am steadily coming to the conclusion that Al Qaeda does not exist par se. Al Qaeda is a creation of the neo-conservative element of the US government. Attacks have been carried out in Al Qaeda's name since because they have seized this idea that the neo-cons created and claim to act on it's behalf even though not having any connection with Bin Laden. So for General Vines to say he has evidence that Al-Qaeda is bullshit. Al-Zarqawi maybe pulling out and taking Bin Laden's financial backing with him, but that doesn't mean they people who are infected with this idea will stop fighting for that idea.

edit: What I discovered the other day is a quote from an senior advisor to George Bush Senior. The reason they didn't topple Saddam is that they figured it would be messy, and turn a glorious victory into ignominious defeat with Amercian forces stuck in Iraq for decades.

War is different to occupation. The war was won, the occupation has ongoing costs. The bulk of the insurgency at present would seem to be sectarian nationalists who want the US out so they can settle scores. They cannot be defeated as such, merely contained, at a cost.

Sectarian violence sounds like civil war to me.

Sectarian violence sounds like civil war to me.
Well yes, but civil wars are never won by foreign powers. They are lost by the nations which suffer them, until a natural burnout occurs. If there comes a point where a civil war is unmistakably under way, with recognisable militias fighting in the streets, then the occupaton serves no further purpose.

Well yes, but civil wars are never won by foreign powers. They are lost by the nations which suffer them, until a natural burnout occurs. If there comes a point where a civil war is unmistakably under way, with recognisable militias fighting in the streets, then the occupaton serves no further purpose.

I agree, but somehow I think that Bush will not see things that way and it will turn into a "peacekeeping" mission. Any excuse to keep troops there. :(

Can I get a link please? Cuz last I heard Al Zarqawi was out because of his ruthlessness, but I never heard anything about Al Qaeda pulling out...
Even if it were true, as someone else already mentioned, they were not the only force fighting the occupation. And seeing how there is a civil war in Iraq (Oh no! We can't call it that!) Al Qaeda really doesn't have to be in there anymore.

...Al-Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda in general has conceeded defeat in Iraq...
To who exactly? Is there some kind of hot-line terrorist orgs ring to conceed defeat? Is this some kind of equivalent to the traditional election night concession phone call from the main loosing party in a two party system? Did the friendly terrorists just ring their enemies and let know and give them reasonable notice of their intentions, so as not to cause to much inconvinience?
I'm having trouble visualing quite how the whole conceding defeat business is supposed to have taken place....:confused:

To who exactly? Is there some kind of hot-line terrorist orgs ring to conceed defeat?

They dial 1-900 Mix-a-Lot.

Well yes, but civil wars are never won by foreign powers. They are lost by the nations which suffer them, until a natural burnout occurs. If there comes a point where a civil war is unmistakably under way, with recognisable militias fighting in the streets, then the occupaton serves no further purpose.

hmm, i seem to remember at least two civil wars where there was no fighting in the streets. . .

so by that logic, its only sectarian violence till we leave? then it becomes civil war.
oh, ok. one more piece of ammo for the admin. :rolleyes:

Can I get a link please? Cuz last I heard Al Zarqawi was out because of his ruthlessness, but I never heard anything about Al Qaeda pulling out...
Even if it were true, as someone else already mentioned, they were not the only force fighting the occupation. And seeing how there is a civil war in Iraq (Oh no! We can't call it that!) Al Qaeda really doesn't have to be in there anymore.The guy who says Zarqawi has been replaced is Huthaifa Azzam, the son of Abudllah Azzam. Abdullah Azzam was the most influential figures of Afghan resistance in the Soviet invasion. He was assassinated shortly after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan. No one has ever claimed responsibility for this assassination, but is it believed to have been commited by one of three groups - the CIA, Mossad or Al Qaeda in an attempt by Bin Laden to become the leader of the jihad aggainst the secular states of the Middle East. So Huthaifa Azzam may have a conflict of interests.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4872236.stm

The General Vines claim has been taken out of context. He claims no knowledge, but is making an inferrence by what has happened recently.
The group's failure to disrupt national elections and a constitutional referendum last year "was a tactical admission by Zarqawi that their strategy had failed," said Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who commands the XVIII Airborne Corps.
"They no longer view Iraq as fertile ground to establish a caliphate and as a place to conduct international terrorism,"http://washingtontimes.com/world/20060413-110216-1235r.htm

They dial 1-900 Mix-a-Lot.

Do terrorists like big butts?

Do terrorists like big butts?

They can not lie.

If the new definition of victory includes 'total and utter failure' or now somehow entails a 'victory' over the nation's treasury, then sure.

Do terrorists like big butts?
Islamist terrorists might, firstly (as pointed out above) is the honesty characteristic of big butts. Honesty is honourable and Islamic terrorists might well prefer that all butts admired by those the terrorists consider to be in the service of Allah be honourable.

Further (and more significantly) if the butts not big, there is simply no seeing it through a burka...