Marine chief of intelligence in Iraq: al-Qaeda controls 30% of Iraq

[Montagnard]

After four, nearly five years, of war the Bush regime has lost 30% of Iraq to the al-Qaeda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001204.html?referrer=email

[grytpype]

1. Well I guess it is the central front in the war on terror...

... now.

[Montagnard]

3. Thanks to Rumsfeld's order for no Post War Planning.

The Bush regime did not and would not plan for what happened after the war....they were told they needed more troops to bring stability to Iraq after the fall of Saddam...they didn't want to hear that, instead they relied upon the Iraqi exiles story of being greeted with flowers and sweets. Rumsfeld was determined to do the war on the cheap.

This is now what comes of empire building.

[jody]

4. Post war planning was not the solution, No Preemptive War was! n/t

[Kagemusha]

2. That's not... exactly what the man said.

He said that Al-Qaeda in Iraq (which is not "the" Al-Qaeda exactly) has become the most pronounced political force in that 30% chunk (Anbar Province) which um, to put it quite bluntly, NO ONE controls that place. Ok, Al-Qaeda in Iraq might have more influence than the US Army or the pathetic excuse for a governorship the place has but, that's far from the textbook definition of control.

Not to put you down at all. Rather, I want to educate people on this board so that the bad news can't be dismissed with nitpicking about presentation.

[Montagnard]

6. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is correct

Taken from the article, it did say that the governing vacuum had been filled by Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

[Kagemusha]

10. ...Well that's just it, no, the vacuum is not really filled.

It's partially filled. It has created room for Al-Qaeda in Iraq to become a more powerful force. But the vacuum has most certainly not ended and Al-Qaeda in Iraq is certainly not "in control"...

It's the most "in control" of the forces there, but that is *not* saying much. That's all.

[dogday]

9. What is this saying then?

Devlin reports that there are no functioning Iraqi government institutions in Anbar, leaving a vacuum that has been filled by the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has become the province's most significant political force, said the Army officer, who has read the report. Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair; a third said it concludes that the United States has lost in Anbar

[Kagemusha]

11. Just saying that Al-Qaeda in Iraq hasn't completely won it either.

If I had bar graphs I'd show Al-Qaeda in Iraq with a somewhat higher bar than the US Army/ Marine Corps, with Iraqi government institutions some distance below the US, and I have no idea how to rate the tribes.

(The tribes are um... how to put this. They're neutral parties leaning towards the insurgency IN GENERAL without being allied with Al-Qaeda IN PARTICULAR, and are not monolithic, but Al Qaeda in Iraq's support among them has risen as they have successfully intimidated and beaten down those who allied with the Iraqi government and the US Army.)

Now from the point of view of the US Marine Corps, this is very, very bad, with no redeeming characteristics. However, we should not mistake Al Qaeda in Iraq for let's say, oh.. Hezbollah, a 'state within a state' with a modest but extensive and functional government apparatus that provides social services such as health care, education, etc, where government support for these things does not exist (and from a Shiite pride/ Hezbollah interest point of view, is not particularly wanted, either). Al Qaeda in Iraq is not a government. It is a terrorist organization.

Besides, I think that it's very misleading to essentially label the entirety of the Sunni insurgency in Anbar Province as being under the banner of Al Qaeda in Iraq; the vast majority of that insurgency is Iraqi nativist, with no practicable connection to Osama Bin Laden, even in thought, let alone financially or in terms of military resources. But that would be nitpicking.

My point is that even taken as an entirety, the insurgency does not CONTROL Anbar Province. No one does. The insurgency is simply more in control than anyone else, which is, in the face of the US Military, a remarkable and astoundingly depressing achievement.

[dogday]

12. Thanks for the explanation

I like to look and listen to all sides and interpretations and make up my mind, and your explanation helped me to understand better the chaos, and how unstable the region is...

[eccles12]

5. The Kurds control another third. Who controls the final third? nt

[Montagnard]

8. Shia

and Iran.

[Hubert Flottz]

7. That's 30% more than they controlled before the PNAC invasion

Why does the PNAC help terrorists?