Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Al Qaeda in Iraq Admits It is Losing

Joe, at No Pasaran sent a link to this fellow’s report on what the jihadists are saying about the failing and falling number of insurgent operations in Iraq:

A prolific jihadist sympathizer has posted an ‘explosive’ study on one of the main jihadist websites in which he laments the dire situation that the mujaheddin find themselves in Iraq by citing the steep drop in the number of insurgent operations conducted by the various jihadist groups, most notably Al-Qaeda’s 94 percent decline in operational ability over the last 12 months when only a year and half ago Al-Qaeda accounted for 60 percent of all jihadist activity!

The author, writing under the pseudonym ‘Dir’a limen wehhed’ [‘A Shield for the Monotheist’], posted his ‘Brief Study on the Consequences of the Division [Among] the [Jihadist] Groups on the Cause of Jihad in Iraq’ on May 12 and it is being displayed by the administration of the Al-Ekhlaas website-one of Al-Qaeda’s chief media outlets-among its more prominent recent posts. He’s considered one of Al-Ekhlaas’s “esteemed” writers.

The author tallies up and compares the numbers of operations claimed by each insurgent group under four categories: a year and half ago (November 2006), a year ago (May 2007), six months ago (November 2007) and now (May 2008). He demonstrated that while Al-Qaeda’s Islamic State of Iraq could claim 334 operations in Nov. 06 and 292 in May 07, their violent output dropped to 25 in Nov. 07 and 16 so far in May 08. Keep in mind that these assessments are based on Al-Qaeda’s own numbers.

The author also shows that similar steep drops were exhibited by other jihadist groups, and he neatly puts it all together in … two charts…

The charts are on Talisman’s post; just scroll down. Even if the exposition is in Arabic, the scale of the drop is self-evident.

Talisman reports what he predicted (quite accurately as it turns out) for Al Qaeda in Iraq several months ago:
- - - - - - - - -
This sense that they were running out of time compelled Al Qaeda to take a bold initiative of declaring the establishment of the Islamic State of Iraq four months back, appointing the hitherto unknown Abu Omar al-Baghdadi as its head. This was no propaganda stunt for Al Qaeda. This was the real thing: the nucleus state for the caliphate, with al-Baghdadi as the candidate caliph.

But this was a fatal strategic mistake for Al Qaeda, a mistake that threatens to pull down all the other jihadist insurgent groups along with it. Al Qaeda tried to leap over reality, but it was a leap into the abyss of uncertainty. Trying to pick a caliph is fraught with historical and judicial complications since there is no historical precedent - not even from the time of the Prophet Muhammad - that would serve for an uncontroversial transfer of power. It is one of the most delicate ideological matters among jihadists, a matter so sensitive that most of them have decided to leave it aside for the time being lest it result in splintering off dissenters.

But Zarqawi’s successors, who inherited the leadership after his death last June and who are, for the most part, rash young ideologues who consider themselves the avant-garde of contemporary radical Islamism, felt that the doddering old guard of Al Qaeda - aged and increasingly inconsequential has-beens such as Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri - would never summon the nerve to force the issue of the caliphate and get it going. So they rushed into action, and it has exploded in their faces, since no other groups seem enthused to join them in this risky venture. This mistake has huge implications for the Iraqi insurgency since Al Qaeda accounts for most of it, and its strategic and ideological failure can quickly be turned into a battlefield rout.

Now: if the MSM were willing to report on the reality rather than their wishful thinking, this thing could be ended even sooner.

Remember: when victory comes, it will not be because of any help that Iraq or the Coalition received from the media, the useful idiots in our Imperial Congress, or the small but ferocious anti-war leftists who would have had us on the roof of various palaces, helicopters at the ready, to abandon our colleagues to their fate.

These people simply don’t understand commitment beyond the pain of losing soldiers, or staying to fight when the going gets rough. They are the turn-tail-and-run group, which has always existed in American culture, and always will.

We are learning how to build work-arounds against the worst of their predations, and America and her allies will prevail against them this time.

If we can just keep the kid who wants to “dialogue” with murderers and tyrants out of office and we stand a chance for victory in Iraq.

15 comments:

Proud Infidel said...

Great post, Dymphna. I have nothing to add, you said it all.

laine said...

Democrats managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once before, in Vietnam.

Their media handmaidens starting with "the most trusted man in America", Walter Cronkite lied about the Tet offensive, presenting it as an all is lost defeat for American troops when it was in fact the communists who were on the ropes as admitted later in a book by no less an authority than the North Vietnamese military strategist General Vo Nguyen Giap. He delineated how post defeat, they followed American media reports and were newly heartened by the false spin benefiting them.

The MSM and Democratic political party are functionally a fifth column aiding and abetting America's foreign enemies in order to seize the reins of government at home. It's been said that the Democrats will do anything to gain power and will rule over rubble if need be. The rubble of the WTC wasn't enough to sober them up to the dangerous game they are playing merely for power.

Markku said...

Occupying Iraq was a really dumb move. You should read what the War Nerd has to say about it. His latest piece:

The US didn't beat al Qaida in Iraq. It was the local Sunnis who got fed up with these mostly foreign (Saudi's etc.) jihadists disrupting their lives.

The real problem are the powerful Shiite militias that have the backing of the local population (and Iran but that is of less importance). They have the support of the local population because they're the only ones actually doing something for the locals which also allows them to recruit from the local population.

Iraq will never become a stable democracy and a US ally. The central goverment is a joke and it's troops are for a large part Shiite militiamen in government uniforms.

Occupying Iraq has done no good whatsoever for the US. A complete waste of treasure and manpower. As a bonus, military options for the US are severely restricted because of the huge manpower requirements if occupying Iraq. Iran and North Korea are perfectly aware of this.

I wish Iraq wouldn't turn out to be for the USA what Afghanistan was for the SSSR.

The Poster Formerly Known as Gordon said...

laine: The "fifth column" meme belongs over at LGF, not here.

The MSM is has been correctly reporting for some time now that al qaeda in Iraq is on the ropes, thanks primarily to the wisdom of General Petraeus and the "Surge," taking over for the follies of the previous Rumsfeld/Bremer plan for the Iraq occupation.

The MSM is also correctly reporting that the big problem now is the Shiite civil war and the mischief Iran can make as a result.

As for the Democrats, I believe there is a legitimate argument as to whether U.S. troops can do anything further positive in Iraq. And if they can't there's no point in wasting American lives there.

That doesn't make anyone a "fifth columnist." Treason talk belongs at LGF, not here.

Dymphna said...

Poster Formerly -

Google the phrase "New york times America is losing in Iraq" (without the quotes) and see the first ten hits. America is losing, losing, losing.

I could have done the New Republic, the Nation, or any other left-wing rag, and the litany would be the same.

Even when we do win, the meme will be that AlQI lost, not tht we actually did anything. Oh, wait a minute, War Nerd is already saying it, right?

I'll take Wretchard's view, thanks. He's a seasoned fighter himself and an expert analyst.

And I'll take the view of the guy from the Hudson Institute.

There is a great deal of infrastructure to be rebuilt in Iraq and a great deal of neighborhood building, which the officers on the ground are in the process of doing.

Iraq will end up in our camp, in the long run. And if we leave them to the devices of Iran, it would be a mortally grievous wound for them. Leaving to face Saddam by themselves was bad enough.

Dymphna said...

@laine --

The MSM and Democratic political party are functionally a fifth column aiding and abetting America's foreign enemies in order to seize the reins of government at home. It's been said that the Democrats will do anything to gain power and will rule over rubble if need be. The rubble of the WTC wasn't enough to sober them up to the dangerous game they are playing merely for power.

I agree re the MSM.They've proved it over and over. Compared to the Dems, they have principles. The latter always have their finger to the wind, trying to see which way things are blowing. Hillary has become a hawk of late, in order to try to move past Mr.-Dialogue-with-Tyrants. It's a fascinating transformation from her years as First Lady, when she made it plain how much she loathed the military.

And Murtha is a disgrace, just to name one more.

Look at who last voted down funding for Iraq and you have the list of losers.

no2liberals said...

Good find, dymphna.
Micahel Yon reported on this back in March.
"Al Qaeda is still trying to spin Iraq into civil war, but whereas in 2005-2006 al Qaeda was succeeding, today al Qaeda is being shredded."
There is another graph for ascertaining that AQ is being shredded, and it comes from Terrorist Death Watch.
U.S. versus terrorists deaths since Jan 06.
As for the assessment that the Mahdi militia controls things in Sadr City, comes this report.
Iraqi army seizes Sadr's Baghdad bastion.
AQ is shredded, the Iraqi government is taking over in areas dominated by militias, Iraqi citizens are volunteering for the Army, Police, and concerned citizens groups in record numbers. The MNF continues to train the ISF, which is standing up better each day.
A sovereign nation built on democratic principles may look different in Iraq than say Europe, but it is happening.
I do pity the unemployed goons, rapists, and mass grave diggers from Saddam's regime, but they will have to adapt.
The NYSlimes and the other fifth column comrades can go to Hades.

The Poster Formerly Known as Gordon said...

Hello Dymphna, now type in New York Times America is winning in Iraq (without quotes). You will find almost as many references from the Times itself.

And several of the "losing" links were to dated articles (pre-2007). And, before General Petraeus showed up, it is quite arguable and plausible that we were, if not "losing," then certainly "not winning."

Also, please note that Walter Cronkite did not say that we were "losing" in Vietnam. He actually called it a "stalemate." It is certainly arguable whether he was correct or not, but there's quite a difference between the two terms.

To no2liberals, I repeat - "fifth column" nonsense belongs on LGF, not here.

The Poster Formerly Known as Gordon said...

Dymphna, as a decorated armed forces veteran who fought valiantly in Vietnam (and to date has not been slimed by Swift Boaters like John Kerry was), I don't consider John Murtha a "disgrace." And I think it is sad that you would dishonor his service, even if you disagree with his views on Iraq, with an ad hominem attack like that.

The Poster Formerly Known as Gordon said...

Er, to clear up any confusion, John Murtha is the decorated Vietnam Vet, not me! I was way too young to fight in Vietnam, and my eyesight was (and is) too bad to fight anywhere else!

no2liberals said...

Fifth Column!
And I'm a vet.

IgnorantInfidel said...

Poster Formerly Known
As an Honorably Discharged Veteran that could easily have been deployed to Viet Nam but was not, and whose brother was; I find Rep. John Murtha to be a disgrace not only to his country but a disgrace to the uniform he once wore. Whether his decorations were earned, or merely awarded as Sen john Kerry's, I do not know.

If he were really concerned about the welfare of the members of our armed forces he would not be making frequent public statements that give aid and comfort to our enemies.

The Poster Formerly Known as Gordon said...

no2liberals and ignorantinfidel: A large majority of United States citizens are now apparently "disgraces giving aid and comfort to our enemies" and "fifth columnists," because they believe the War in Iraq was a mistake and that our soldiers should leave.

Maybe they should be known as "third through fifth columnists," since they seem to make up a majority of the columns.

As for John Murtha, his record as a Congressman since 1974 shows that he did not come to this conclusion about Iraq lightly. It's a shame that you refuse to acknowledge that, even if you disagree. Perhaps it's why your position (that we stay and fight in Iraq) is losing ground. After all "patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels."

IgnorantInfidel said...

Poster Formerly Known
I acknowledge that a significant percentage, it not a majority, now believe the Iraqi conflict as part of the War On Terror is/was a mistake. However, that same majority also believe that hoisting Rep. Murtha's White Flag of Surrender, tucking our tails between our legs and running home would be a bigger mistake. They realize that the CURE represented by surrender is worse than the DISEASE of continued action in Iraq.

I can not deny or argue effectively that the initial phases of the Iraqi war were planned and executed poorly. The complications generated by these miscalculations generated increased feeling of nonacceptance.

However the changes in strategy and tactics initiated approximately one year ago have produced very significant gains politically, socially, and militarily by Iraqis. Had we followed the Democrats' SURRENDER NOW inspiration none of these positive developments could have been achieved.

Iraq would have disappeared. It would have been replaced by expansion of Syrian and Iranian borders with an al Qaeda sector. Today's multiculturists and PC obsessed appeasers would not let us defend Vienna. The resurrected Ottoman Empire would be on the verge of conquering all Europe.

If that is what you want then defend John Murtha until the sharp edge of an Islamic/Muslim sword cuts the flesh of your neck.

no2liberals said...

The majority of the colonists didn't want to rebel against the British Crown, and George Washington was nearly replaced as Commander.
Lincoln had to replace McClellan.
As most active duty and vets understand, plans are nice, but are generally worthless once rounds are fired. To win you have to adapt, improvise, and overcome.
The NYSlimes has proven itself to me to be a traitorous rag to American interests.
As for Murtha, whatever he was long ago, I know what he is now, an unindicted co-conspirator, that acts against America's interest, and drains our national budget in sums never seen before by using earmarks. If Murtha was worth flatulence, he would apologize to the Marines he publicly accused of murder, who have all been acquitted.
Nodrog, why you think you have any authority to lecture anyone on anything, is still a constant source of bewilderment to me, after all these years.