Iraqi Militias Fighting Al Q'aeda

[Heibges]

However the debate turns out in Washington, this is an encouraging sign for the Iraqi people. Or at least for the Sunni anyway.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2934833320070629?src=062907_1551_DOUBLEFEATUR E_dems_seek_withdrawal

[Jimbuna]

'Ultra cautious' must be the order of the day...can anyone be trusted that much in Iraq ? :hmm:

[Skybird]

It was on german "Auslands-Journal" yesterday, or wednesday, too, that is a TV magazine focussing on only two or three stories from outside germany, but reporting about these in length.

They showed that unfortunately, Al-Quaeda does not sit still, but already repeatedly struck back. Several Sheiks got killed during an assembly, and several of their commanders already were assassinated, some more were attempted to get killed, too.

However, let them fight, fine, but I hope nobody is stupid enough to see them as lasting and trustworthy allies. Israel once supported Hamas as a tool to keep Arafat in check - today they probably wish they wouldn't have done that. America once supported the Taliban, which meanwhile has been revealed to have been a mistake. To rely on this or that "friendly" group inside Iraq and support them - probably only means to give them weapons that sooner or later will be directed against American and British soldiers.

[Heibges]

We're probably going to have to deal with someone though. Eventually.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13670/surge_faltering_iraqs_future_at_issue.html?breadcr umb=%2F

[Skybird]

We're probably going to have to deal with someone though. Eventually.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13670/surge_faltering_iraqs_future_at_issue.html?breadcr umb=%2F

I disagree with that comparison to Vietnam in the last paragraph. The defeat in Vietnam only was a loss of face for the US, without further strategical consequences, even less so after the Chinese "lectured" the aggressively acting Vietnamese during the third Vietnam war. The de facto defeat in Iraq, however, has several longterm strategical consequences, all of them are negative, and they are already to be felt - both for America, and Europe and all world as well. The enemy clearly has the ability to prevent the US from winning - and by this, he is winning himself. The US would need to defeat the enemy in order to make this a win - and it should be clear now for everybody that this is not possible.

I think that what is needed is a very massive, most fundamental change of strategy, a shift away from attempts to militarily defeat Islamic terror in foreign countries, and towards actions to keep them away from ourcountries instead. This sounds queer, it sounds like voluntarily give up the initiative, and everybody playijng chess will shake his head. But the Soviets held their ground in Afghanistan were they had strong garrisons and bastions, but were hurtingly defeated very often when leaving these in attempts to pick up the initiative again. For the West it would mean to

- isolate all countries that tolerate and do not actively fight against islam's jihad,
- perfect our tools and measurements to guard our cultural sphere's borders (which leads as far as limiting traffic, trade and tourism and strictly control it),
- freeze diplomatic relations
- give priority to develope the technical and economical tools needed to become independant from Muslim oil,
- give priority to infiltrate terror cells, financial networks and Muslim communities,
- understanding that military operations are not the main focus of counter-terror operationsk, but that intelligence operations are the key to success,
- closing our borders where necessary,
- rethinking our past decisions on how much freedom we want to give islam in the western world, and reeducating our people on what it really means.

De facto we are under siege by djiahd, by aggressive Islam. this battgle is fought on many levels, with weapons, with words, with demographics, with arguments, with blackmailing, with abusing people, and manipulation of public opinions. From this perspective the "war on Islamic terror" needs to be re-defined, and understood. Because in the main this is a fight against an ideology that educates people in thinking that way that has enforced this conflict upon us. So far we send planes and fighters and the cavalry, instead we should understand the value of taking cover, keeping a low profile, not overstretching our lines and ressources, listen and observe the enemy and learn him inside out, and when we have a valid target - then we strike ferociously into the heart of the enemy.

Rule number one when you have weapons platform with standoff capability: keep your distance, minimize your risks, kill the enemy from outside his fire range.

If all this reminds you of an SSN, then you think the same like what I had on mind when writing this. :lol: We cannot defeat them in their own realms, and while trying this we weaken ourselves in many different ways, and weaken the defense of our communities at home. We need to give up those foreign places, focus on reliably keep them away from our countries, sue these as well-supported safe havens and basions from where we conduct our counter intelligence war - and on occasion send military strikes into hostile nations that are not meant to stay and to conquer and bring democracy and free people and idealistioc stuff, but that are meant to just kill and destroy the enemy's fighters, supporters and installations. By that we fight at the time we choose, in the place we choose, by the means we choose, against the enemy we choose - not the other way around.

This is a cultural conflict. that this means that we need to adapt by changing our living styles a bit to succeed in thsi struggle should be clear to all, but obviously it isn't. A cultural conflict cannot be won by sending armadas alone. They are an assisting ressource only.

I think my understanding of how the war against aggressive Islam (that's what the terror is about) needs to be fought is far more uncompromising and grim than what the defenders of the Iraq war may ever have had on their minds. Surprise, surprise.

Concerning war, you either do it right, or you better don't even try at all. What we have now in Iraq and Afghnaistan, is a waste of precious ressources, and confusion and ignorrance forming the decisions.

The aggressiveness in Islamic ideology will never change, it is simply anchored in it's thinking and in the Quran, and the quran is the word of God - period. It is no object to interpretation, it has no freedoms to agree on this and not on that. Islam never had a hermenautical tradition to do that, and the word of God is untouchable, not to be selectively changed, in parts erased, in parts rewritten by man. But - even Islam depends on the energy of it's communities to push it's cause and fight for it. Means: demography is a decisive factor. Although currently most Muslim nations and communities are brimming with youth and thus: energy and young men who easily can be inspired and filled with enthusiasm, this will change substantially in around 50-70 years. Then, their communties will face the same problem like Europe today: they will be overaged, and old. the dynmic of their people and nations will reflect this. If we hold out until then, we have won again - for this time. The next offensive of islam is only a question of time - but that time may be 60-120 years later, and who knows how muczh the world may have chnaged then, ecologically, and economically, and militarily, and socially, and politically. Wjhat will be in two hundred years is speculation. But to hold out for the next two generations - that is within our reach.