What is Digg?6 Comments
- etg1109, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5How many Generals need to come back and say its getting better? Wake up people...if 150,000 American troops can't secure the country...When will Iraq soldiers ever have a chance..."Once Iraqi troops stand up, we'll stand down" It's the same ***** that Nixon said during Vietnam...
- jackelsmack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Uh, "we" is every US intelligence agency and the military itself. Gen. Barry McCaffrey found there are 100,000 armed insurgents in Iraq and they "do not depend fundamentally on foreign support for their operations", meaning they are nationalists, not Osama's minions/vassals.
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/2130/Iraqi_Majority_Supports_Attack_on_US
Anyone who's been following the Iraq situation knows that "Al Qaeda in Iraq" (original name "Monotheism and Jihad") is a tiny, universally-hated minority of the insurgency, estimated at 1,000 fighters. They are not, in fact, under operational control of Osama. Their public declaration of allegiance to Al Qaeda is more a convenient "branding" exercise for both parties than a true alliance. Evidence shows Al Qaeda is unable to control the activities of "Al Qaeda in Iraq" and their goals are in conflict:
---
According to experts, Zarqawi gave al-Qaeda a highly visible presence in Iraq at a time when its original leaders went into hiding or were killed after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.[59] He established al-Qaeda's first military beachhead and training camps outside Afghanistan and by using the al-Qaeda name, Zarqawi bolstered his legitimacy and attracted media attention, as well as money and recruits.[59] In turn, al-Qaeda leaders were able to brand a new franchise in Iraq and claim they were at the forefront of the fight to expel U.S. forces.[59] But this relationship was proven to be fragile as Zarqawi angered al-Qaeda leaders by focusing attackings on Iraqi Shia's more often than U.S. military. In September 2005, U.S. intelligence officials said they had confiscated a long letter that al-Qaeda's deputy leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had written to Zarqawi, bluntly warning that Muslim public opinion was turning against him.[59] According to Paul Wilkinson, chairman of the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, "A number of al-Qaeda figures were uncomfortable with the tactics he was using in Iraq...It was quite clear with Zarqawi that as far as the al-Qaeda core leadership goes, they couldn't control the way in which their network affiliates operated."[72]
--- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi
What little influence Al Qaeda has in Iraq is currently being killed off by the locals. "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is a boogeyman-word the administration gets its trained monkeys to recite in order to confuse low-information individuals such as yourself. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I don't think it was "America's intelligence" that got us into it, even if you meant our Intelligence, as in CIA. But if you did mean our Intelligence, as in CIA, then I don't get what you mean about them criticizing the war. Has that been an issue?
And no, it's not logical that Generals will become political accessories. Shinseki (sp?) said it would take 400,000 troops and he was cast aside like a bloody rag. - wheresmyreagan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"comments that General Petraeus made are absolutely inaccurate, according to the intelligence we have. "
Ummm, what intelligence do you have that Patraeus doesn't. Maybe you should share. Who is we? - Moderni, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2First off it's obvious to any person who even attempts to follow the current situation in Iraq that Al Qaeda has next to no influence when it comes to the actual political stability of Iraq. They're just too bloody small. Second, the reason why 150,000 US troops cannot secure the country is because this is exactly the same situation as Viet Nam. Regardless if you like to hear it or not this is a politically driven conflict with political agendas and political doctrine. Just like Viet Bloody Nam. 300,000 troops could not secure Iraq under the current Congressional hamstringing, let alone 150,000.
- Moderni, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Of course it was a political move. When a nation decides to embroil its self in a political war it is only logical that Generals become political accessories. Though what I find interesting is that how America's intelligence was not good enough to get into this conflict, but it is more than good enough to criticize it.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is