Skip to content

al Qaeda in Baghdad has Been Defeated

February 17, 2008

 I thought I would write about a topic that used to be a daily, if not hourly subject but which has vanished from the news cycle, and political arena almost totally: Iraq.

 Much that should be reported in Iraq is now being ignored and I find it disturbing although not surprising the the media would push this news off to the side. After all we need to know what the latest news with Brittney Spears is, don’t we. The media doesn’t have time to report good news from Iraq, only bad, we can’t have both I guess.

 Here is some of the news I am interested in:

“Thank God, we destroyed the cells of Al-Qaeda. They have been chased out of Baghdad and this has opened the way for their defeat throughout Iraq,” Maliki said at a ceremony marking the launch on February 14 last year of the Baghdad security plan,

 al Qaeda has been defeated in Baghdad, our soldiers are performing brilliantly and the job is getting done. While it has been much slower than forseen things have turned our way in Iraq and the media doesn’t find this newsworthy.

“Today our forces are locked in battle against outlaws in Nineveh and we are chasing them,” he added

Maliki on January 25 announced a “decisive battle” against Al-Qaeda in Nineveh province, and sent troop and police reinforcements to the provincial capital Mosul, which the US military says is the last urban stronghold of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

 This could be al Qaeda’s last stand in Iraq and Americans aren’t being told this is happening, this is almost journalistic malpractice. Americans just see Iraq as business as usual, these stories need to get out there yet the media remains silent in order to protect the defeatists that are running for president.

The prime minister thanked “all those who helped make the security plan a success and who saved the country from the miserable situation it was in due to Al-Qaeda’s violence and terrorism.”

 Did he just use the word success when talking about the war? Holy shit! That is not a word I have ever heard the media over here use. As a matter of fact I haven’t heard one Democrat running for president use that word either. Success in Iraq seems to be the best exit strategy to me, that would be the goal.

 The media and the Democrats have succeeded in drumming negativity into the minds of the American people and the president didn’t help himself by not speaking out more as this was all going on. The war has dragged on much longer that anyone could have hoped for and I wish it had ended long ago but the fact is that progress is being made over there now and I don’t think the positives that are happening are being sufficiently reported.

 It is too late to change people’s opinion of the war but the people should at least be made aware that things are improving over there, and that is where my problem lies. The media reported the rising body counts with glee, Democrats fought for face time every time a round number appeared for American casualties so they could remind the American people we were failing. If an American was involved in a controversy there was always a Democrat on television to call our soldiers terrorists (John Kerry), or compare Americans to Pol Pot and Nazis. But now, with the news getting better over there……….NOTHING!

Read more here.

4 Comments leave one →
  1. February 19, 2008 11:52 pm

    You do such a good job of staying on top of the good news coming out of Afghanistan and Iraq. I will have to link to this in tomorrow’s smorgasbord.


  2. February 20, 2008 5:56 am

    It is just so agrivating that the media chooses to ignore our military when things are going well. Rememner when Charlie Gibson said “the news out of Iraq today is that there is no news”? He then went on to say something about there being no violence that day. To me that should be news, but to the liberal media it means nothing.


  3. Kirkrrt permalink
    February 21, 2008 7:30 am

    When was al Qaeda ever in Baghdad? I don’t remember ever reading about al Qaeda in Baghdad.

    Here is an update on Baghdad that seems more pertinent.

    Which brings me to the president’s goals for the surge. How many of his goals have been met? One? How is that political reconsiliation coming along? How is that oil revenue sharing agreement doing?

    The surge has worked only in that fewer Americans are being killed. The situation on the ground is as tenuous as it has ever been only now we have neighborhoods seperated with walls.


  4. joe permalink
    February 25, 2008 5:30 am

    Political reconciliation happeed last week with the Sunni and Bathists being released from prison and allowed to work in the governmet, they passed a budget, dividing up oil revenue and giving the Kurds 16% (I think), elections are scheduled for Oct. (those will behard to ignore), and al-Sadr extended his cease-fire for another six months. How could it be shocking to you that you haven’t heard any of this after reading that post. The don’t want tyou to know about it, at last V doesn’t. Here are two great articles by Dem think tank types who were very critical of pre-surge strategy, andhave atually been to Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Two Winnable Wars

    By Anthony H. Cordesman
    Sunday, February 24, 2008; Page B07

    No one can return from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, as I recently did, without believing that these are wars that can still be won. They are also clearly wars that can still be lost, but visits to the battlefield show that these conflicts are very different from the wars being described in American political campaigns and most of the debates outside the United States.

    These conflicts involve far more than combat between the United States and its allies against insurgent movements such as al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Taliban. Meaningful victory can come only if tactical military victories end in ideological and political victories and in successful governance and development. Dollars are as important as bullets, and so are political accommodation, effective government services and clear demonstrations that there is a future that does not need to be built on Islamist extremism.
    The military situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are very different. The United States and its allies are winning virtually every tactical clash in both countries. In Iraq, however, al-Qaeda is clearly losing in every province. It is being reduced to a losing struggle for control of Nineveh and Mosul. There is a very real prospect of coalition forces bringing a reasonable degree of security if decisions such as Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s announcement Friday to extend his militia’s cease-fire six months continue over a period of years.
    Military victory is far more marginal in Afghanistan. NATO and international troops can still win tactically, but the Taliban is sharply expanding its support areas as well as its political and economic influence and control in Afghanistan. It has scored major gains in Pakistan, which is clearly the more important prize for al-Qaeda and has more Pashtuns than Afghanistan. U.S. commanders privately warn that victory cannot be attained without more troops, without all members of NATO and the International Security Assistance Force fully committing their troops to combat, and without a much stronger and consistent effort by the Pakistani army in both the federally administered tribal areas in western Pakistan and the Baluchi area in the south.
    What the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan have in common is that it will take a major and consistent U.S. effort throughout the next administration at least to win either war. Any American political debate that ignores or denies the fact that these are long wars is dishonest and will ensure defeat. There are good reasons that the briefing slides in U.S. military and aid presentations for both battlefields don’t end in 2008 or with some aid compact that expires in 2009. They go well beyond 2012 and often to 2020.

    If the next president, Congress and the American people cannot face this reality, we will lose. Years of false promises about the speed with which we can create effective army, police and criminal justice capabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot disguise the fact that mature, effective local forces and structures will not be available until 2012 and probably well beyond. This does not mean that U.S. and allied force levels cannot be cut over time, but a serious military and advisory presence will probably be needed for at least that long, and rushed reductions in forces or providing inadequate forces will lead to a collapse at the military level.

    The most serious problems, however, are governance and development. Both countries face critical internal divisions and levels of poverty and unemployment that will require patience. These troubles can be worked out, but only over a period of years. Both central governments are corrupt and ineffective, and they cannot bring development and services without years of additional aid at far higher levels than the Bush administration now budgets. Blaming weak governments or trying to rush them into effective action by threatening to leave will undercut them long before they are strong enough to act.

    Any American political leader who cannot face these realities, now or in the future, will ensure defeat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Any Congress that insists on instant victory or success will do the same. We either need long-term commitments, effective long-term resources and strategic patience — or we do not need enemies. We will defeat ourselves.

    The writer holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He recently returned from the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: