Al-Qaida Strongest Since 9/11

[Joemailman]

Intelligence report: Al Qaida at renewed strength in Pakistan
By Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Newspapers


WASHINGTON — The al Qaida terrorist network has rebounded and is at its greatest strength since it was expelled from Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a new top-level U.S. intelligence assessment concludes, U.S. officials said Wednesday.

Calling al Qaida the most potent terrorist threat to U.S. national security, the classified draft makes clear that the Bush administration has been unable to cripple Osama bin Laden and the violent terror movement he founded.

The report is known as a National Intelligence Estimate, which is the highest level analysis produced by the U.S. intelligence community for the president and Congress. It represents the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.

These conclusions were reflected in an unclassified report on global threats to U.S. security delivered Wednesday to the House Armed Services Committee, said U.S. officials, who spoke anonymously due to the intelligence issues involved.

Al Qaida's core leadership — a reference to bin Laden and his top aide, Ayman al Zawahri — is increasingly directing global terrorist operations from a haven in Pakistan's lawless tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, officials from the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in presenting the unclassified report.

"We actually see the al Qaida central being resurgent in their role in planning operations. They seem to be fairly well-settled into the safe haven and the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan there," John Kringen, the CIA's director for intelligence, said.

"We see more training, we see more money, and we see more communications," Kringen said.

Ross Feinstein, a spokesman for Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, confirmed that the National Intelligence Estimate is due for completion this summer. He declined to discuss its contents.

The report has been in the works for some time "and is not a response to any specific threat," Feinstein said.

)

The U.S. intelligence community's assessment of the al Qaida threat comes as more bad news for President Bush.

Bush has repeatedly tried to cast the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq as part of the struggle against worldwide terrorism.

But many of the government's own counterterrorism analysts say the Iraq war has fueled anti-Western militancy and served as recruitment aid for bin Laden and like-minded Islamic extremists.

Over the last two weeks, Bush has cited the violence in Iraq perpetrated by a group calling itself al Qaida in Iraq. But that group wasn't present in Iraq before the March 2003 U.S. invasion, and there is no evidence it is under the control of bin Laden or his lieutenants.

Paul Pillar, a former top CIA official, said in an interview that al Qaida has seen "a partial strengthening of their position in South Asia."

That doesn't mean the group has fully reverted to its former strength, he said. "That's not the same as saying we're back to the way things were before September 11, 2001," Pillar said.

The intelligence analysts also stated in their congressional testimony — more bluntly than officials have before — that bin Laden and his closest aides are in Pakistan, ensconced in that country's rugged tribal areas bordering Pakistan.

"They continue to maintain active connections and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders hiding in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East, North and East Africa, and Europe," Thomas Fingar, deputy director for analysis in McConnell's office, said in written testimony prepared beforehand.

Previously, U.S. officials have said only that they suspect bin Laden is hiding in the remote border region. It is unclear whether Fingar's remarks reflect new intelligence data on the terrorist leader's location.

Appearing before the committee, Fingar spoke more vaguely of al Qaida leaders "hiding in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region."

Pakistan's role as a haven for al Qaida prompted pointed comments from committee members.

Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., complained that Pakistan's military regime refuses to allow U.S. forces to intervene militarily in the tribal areas. "That doesn't sound like a formula for success to me," Cooper said.

But Fingar warned that armed U.S. intervention could bolster the militants. "It is not too great an exaggeration to say there is some risk of turning a problem in northwest Pakistan into the problem of all of Pakistan," he said.

U.S. officials have said in recent weeks that there are growing indications of activity by al Qaida-linked terrorists. But they caution that there is no intelligence involving a specific threat to U.S. soil.

In remarks reported Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the Chicago Tribune's editorial board that he believed "we are entering a period this summer of increased risk." Chertoff said his comments were based on a "gut feeling."

Posted on Wed, July 11, 2007
McClatchy Newspapers 2007



I'm guessing we won't be hearing the President talking about Al-Qaida being "on the run". The irony is that Al-Qaida has regrouped under the protection of Pakistan, a supposed ally of the U.S. The upcoming elections in Pakistan, if their military lets them happen at all, could be incredibly important.

[oregonpackfan]

People also forget that Saudi Arabia is a huge haven for al-Qaida. Saudi Arabia is supposedly an ally of the United States.

Consider these facts about Saudi Arabia:

1. Of the 19 terrorists about the 4 hijacked planes in the 9/11 tragedy, 14 of them were from Saudi Arabia. None were from Iraq.

2. Osama bin Ladin, the alleged leader of al Qaida, was born and raised in Saudi Arabia.

3. At the time of September 11, 2001, there were more al Qaida members in Saudi Arabia than in any Muslim country.

Why has not the USA tried to hold Saudi Arabia responsible for al Qaida? IMO, the USA does not want to offend Saudi Arabia, which is the number one importer of Mideast oil to the USA.

It should be noted that Iraq has the #2 proven reserves of oil in the Mideast--which is what the rationale for the Iraq invasion is truly all about, IMO. Invading and occupying Iraq is primarily about securing Iraq's oil. Fighting al-Qaida is just a smokescreen for having our troops in Iraq.

[Harlan Huckleby]

People also forget that Saudi Arabia is a huge haven for al-Qaida. Saudi Arabia is supposedly an ally of the United States.

The Saudi royal family are ... lets say greasy. They are very practical, unprincipled, interested in one thing - staying in power. They will cut deals with anybody: Islamist extremists, Jews, Americans, doesn't matter.
In the past, they placated Islamic extremists, bought them off by financing their lovely extremist schools, the Madrasses.
But I promise you that the Saudi goverment is no longer coddling the extremists! They are now at war. Bin Laden is commited first and foremost to toppling the Saudi royal family. al-Qaedi types hate the Saudi establishment (and the governments of Egypt, Jordan etc.) far more than the U.S. They want to establish a caliphate (muslem empire) across the middle east. Maybe someday they hope to take Ohio too, I don't know; but really their goal is to purify muslem lands.





2. Osama bin Ladin, the alleged leader of al Qaida, was born and raised in Saudi Arabia..

yes, but his primary beef is with the insufficiently holy Royal Family. He went into the terrorism business because the Royal Family let infidels, that would be us, on sacred Moslem land during the first Gulf War.


Invading and occupying Iraq is primarily about securing Iraq's oil. Fighting al-Qaida is just a smokescreen for having our troops in Iraq.

I agree with this, pretty much. But the business about bringing democracy to the Middle East was also sincere in many war supporters minds.

[Deputy Nutz]

Get use to it. We are going to have to deal with these bastards forever. You just can't tuck them away in your closet and hope they disappear when you shut your eyes to go to sleep at night.

Eventully they will find countries willing to accept their money and harbor them until the United States pressures them to kick them out, or until the United States infiltrates the said country. If Pakistan so wishes to harbor terrorist then Bush needs to keep his word, and make no distinction in those that cause terror verses those that harbor terrorist.

I don't have an answer in dealing with these morons, but who does? How can you fight an enemy that doesn't even respect their own lives? Bush has decided to take the war to these fellas, it isn't exactly working and Clinton stuck his head in the sand and that didn't exactly work either. I think it is time to go to one extreme or another with this Muslim dogs.

[swede]

Get use to it.

Too right! Given the lack of a geographical issue and the fight over cultural and religious issues without respect, really, to any country or government in particular, this could be a 2 or 3 hundred year conflict.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Get use to it.

Too right! Given the lack of a geographical issue and the fight over cultural and religious issues without respect, really, to any country or government in particular, this could be a 2 or 3 hundred year conflict.

The only problem is that the left wing MSM continues to give sustenance to our enemies. We are winning the war, but they won't report it.

The only hope for this country is to re-elect the bestest president ever, God bless president Bush.

I know that he will not rest till Osama is found.

[Deputy Nutz]

Get use to it.

Too right! Given the lack of a geographical issue and the fight over cultural and religious issues without respect, really, to any country or government in particular, this could be a 2 or 3 hundred year conflict.

The only problem is that the left wing MSM continues to give sustenance to our enemies. We are winning the war, but they won't report it.

The only hope for this country is to re-elect the bestest president ever, God bless president Bush.

I know that he will not rest till Osama is found.

I voted for Bush for two terms, but I find his method and understanding of the rest of the world is not the answer in dealing with these individuals or for that matter the world.

[Freak Out]

Get use to it.

Too right! Given the lack of a geographical issue and the fight over cultural and religious issues without respect, really, to any country or government in particular, this could be a 2 or 3 hundred year conflict.

The only problem is that the left wing MSM continues to give sustenance to our enemies. We are winning the war, but they won't report it.

The only hope for this country is to re-elect the bestest president ever, God bless president Bush.

I know that he will not rest till Osama is found.

I voted for Bush for two terms, but I find his method and understanding of the rest of the world is not the answer in dealing with these individuals or for that matter the world.

Yet you voted for him twice.

[the_idle_threat]

So did I.

I can agree that the Bush Administration's handling hasn't been perfect, but I positively shudder at the thought of either Gore or Kerry in charge.

BUSH= Ballot Ugly; Settled Here

And for all of you who are bent outta shape by this report, consider that these are the same folks that brought us reports of yellowcake in Niger and WMDs in Iraq. If you don't believe what they said then, and "Bush Lied", then why are you so ready to believe them now? Just because it's politically convenient?

[Freak Out]

So did I.

I can agree that the Bush Administration's handling hasn't been perfect, but I positively shudder at the thought of either Gore or Kerry in charge.

BUSH= Ballot Ugly; Settled Here

And for all of you who are bent outta shape by this report, consider that these are the same folks that brought us reports of yellowcake in Niger and WMDs in Iraq. If you don't believe what they said then, and "Bush Lied", then why are you so ready to believe them now? Just because it's politically convenient?

Well I agree that Kerry was not a "Beautiful" option but considering who was in office...

[mraynrand]

One interesting thing to consider is that what Musharaf did in Pakistan (essentially withdrawing troops from Waziristan) is exactly what a lot of people want us to do in Iraq. Clearly al Quaeda is in Iraq and clearly giving them a secure base from which to train is a bad idea.

I agree with the sentiment that a substantial motivation for going into Iraq was to secure oil. But don't forget that the U.S. only gets about 18% of it's oil from the midwest. 2/3 of the the few hundred million to billion barrels Iraq has exported in the past several years did not come to the U.S. With China expanding their influence on oil everywhere around the globe (along with their support of corrupt regimes) there is great concern that the oil market, which will be essential to the world economy for a long while yet, will be at risk. Is there really anything wrong with the U.S. trying to secure the oil shipping market? A lot of lives depend on it. Maybe going into Iraq wasn't the best method for securing oil, but perhaps it was. Who has the crystal ball?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Waziristan) is exactly what a lot of people want us to do in Iraq. Clearly al Quaeda is in Iraq and clearly giving them a secure base from which to train is a bad idea.

Judging by the ease with which the Sunnis threw al Qaeda out of Anbar, you have to suppose that al Qaeda is pretty weak and vulnerable. I really think the Iraqis are turning against them decisively, this is the good news.



Is there really anything wrong with the U.S. trying to secure the oil shipping market?
this begs the question: How is the Iraq War securing oil shipping? We've created 10 years (minimum) of future instability in Iraq.

If I was running the show, I'd start drawing the troops down this fall.

[Joemailman]

One interesting thing to consider is that what Musharaf did in Pakistan (essentially withdrawing troops from Waziristan) is exactly what a lot of people want us to do in Iraq. Clearly al Quaeda is in Iraq and clearly giving them a secure base from which to train is a bad idea.

I agree with the sentiment that a substantial motivation for going into Iraq was to secure oil. But don't forget that the U.S. only gets about 18% of it's oil from the midwest. 2/3 of the the few hundred million to billion barrels Iraq has exported in the past several years did not come to the U.S. With China expanding their influence on oil everywhere around the globe (along with their support of corrupt regimes) there is great concern that the oil market, which will be essential to the world economy for a long while yet, will be at risk. Is there really anything wrong with the U.S. trying to secure the oil shipping market? A lot of lives depend on it. Maybe going into Iraq wasn't the best method for securing oil, but perhaps it was. Who has the crystal ball?

You just made a very good argument for why we should be doing a lot more to develop alternative sources of energy. Also, if we're going to send people to war to secure oil, shouldn't we be honest about why we're really going to war?

[mraynrand]

Waziristan) is exactly what a lot of people want us to do in Iraq. Clearly al Quaeda is in Iraq and clearly giving them a secure base from which to train is a bad idea.

Judging by the ease with which the Sunnis threw al Qaeda out of Anbar, you have to suppose that al Qaeda is pretty weak and vulnerable. I really think the Iraqis are turning against them decisively, this is the good news.

You see the point. Al Quaeda is not that strong militarily. When 170,000 US troops are in the area and there is local co-operation, they'r effectively pitiful. That's why you have to stay until you run them out. Further South, you still have to dear with Sadr. He has more power, but at least he's been marginalized by the government. In Waziristan, there doesn't seem to t be the same will power and U.S. forces (i think) don't have the same freedom to go through there (they would have to violate Pakistan sovereignty I believe, to attack al Quaeda there).




Is there really anything wrong with the U.S. trying to secure the oil shipping market?
this begs the question: How is the Iraq War securing oil shipping? We've created 10 years (minimum) of future instability in Iraq.

If I was running the show, I'd start drawing the troops down this fall.

I'd start drawing down once the Iraqi troops could show that they can secure areas without U.S. troops. I'd draw down U.S. troops immediately wherever the Iraqi forces prove competent. So I guess I'd be doing the same thing you suggest, but with specific criteria as a guide.

The area may be destabilized for the next ten years, but at least after those ten years, we should have a strong ally that will trade oil with the rest of the world. If China controls African and Venezuelan oil by that time, the world would be up shit river without a paddle with fewer oil-rich allies in the mideast (at least I think that's the reasoning.

[mraynrand]

You just made a very good argument for why we should be doing a lot more to develop alternative sources of energy. Also, if we're going to send people to war to secure oil, shouldn't we be honest about why we're really going to war?

Exactly. But the grown-ups in the room realize you're not going to dismantle and replace a multi-trillion dollar infrastructure surrounding oil production in a short time. I would submit that we already have the means to dispense with most mideastern oil (but the reast of our allies may not). There is absolutely no good reason why the entire U.S. electrical grid can't be supplied by nuclear power. That's just a lack of will. More nuke plants could also provide the energy to produce hydrogen, and that would further reduce the need for oil. But even f there were a concerted effort, you're talking about several decades. Who will support 100-500 new nuclear plants?

[rdanomly]

Cost per kWh of electricity from nuclear power: about $.15 to $.20 (ask the French)
Cost per kWh of electricity from wind here in Indiana: about $.10 to $.12

Nuclear power is expensive and has waste that is definitely not safe.

Renewable energy is becoming more cost effective. If it can break even here in Indiana with our dirt cheap electricity (I pay about $.07 per kWh) places with higher rates and similar wind access should also be able to make a transition to renewable energy using fossil fuels as backups for peak demands.

[mraynrand]

Cost per kWh of electricity from nuclear power: about $.15 to $.20 (ask the French)
Cost per kWh of electricity from wind here in Indiana: about $.10 to $.12

Nuclear power is expensive and has waste that is definitely not safe.

Renewable energy is becoming more cost effective. If it can break even here in Indiana with our dirt cheap electricity (I pay about $.07 per kWh) places with higher rates and similar wind access should also be able to make a transition to renewable energy using fossil fuels as backups for peak demands.

Nuclear sounds pretty competetive. And as you pointed out, you can't have wind mills everywhere. They are a good alternative for certain circumstances and should be used where possible. Nuclear can be a whole lot less expensive and waste can be reduced.

[Deputy Nutz]

Nuclear sounds pretty competetive. And as you pointed out, you can't have wind mills everywhere. They are a good alternative for certain circumstances and should be used where possible. Nuclear can be a whole lot less expensive and waste can be reduced.


Last time I checked we aren't using 97% of Nebraska for anything.

[K-town]

[Last time I checked we aren't using 97% of Nebraska for anything.

We use Nebraska to grow corn. And running backs. :D

[Harlan Huckleby]

Nuclear power is expensive and has waste that is definitely not safe.


We currently get 20% of electricity from nuclear, and that's without having built any new plants since the 70's. Europe gets most of their power thru nuclear.

Homer Simpson seems to regularly survive direct contact with nuclear waste, but I suppose that is just a cartoon. You are right, nuclear waste is the rub. The current power stations are storing their waste internally. I suppose that is an approach that can work for the current century, altho I don't know.


Renewable energy is becoming more cost effective. If it can break even here in Indiana with our dirt cheap electricity (I pay about $.07 per kWh) places with higher rates and similar wind access should also be able to make a transition to renewable energy using fossil fuels as backups for peak demands.

if it were possible to meet energy needs with renewable sources & conservation, I would certainly say go for it. We should do that anyway. But it will never be sufficient.

And think about china. They are adding a new coal-burning power plant every couple days. Nuclear is SO MUCH less damaging to the environment than fossil fuels. The only hope is to find a way to make nuclear power work for the world.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'd start drawing down once the Iraqi troops could show that they can secure areas without U.S. troops. I'd draw down U.S. troops immediately wherever the Iraqi forces prove competent.

The whole problem is that the Iraqi Army is coming along so slowly.

You'd think the Shia would be keen to fight al Qaeda, the al Qaeda ideology is even more anti-Shia than anti-American. But the guys in the Iraqi Army don't want to fight ANYBODY away from their home towns. Did you know that Iraqi Army guys travel home once a month to hand-deliver their paychecks to the wife? In Baquaba, which the U.S. just cleared of insurgents, only 2600 of the expected 8,000 Iraqi troops showed up .

We can't wait the 3-5 years for the IRaqi Army to become self-sufficient.

Fortunately, the idea of using local militias to fight al-Qaeda seems to be working. That's why the troops can draw down in the next year.

[mraynrand]

I'd start drawing down once the Iraqi troops could show that they can secure areas without U.S. troops. I'd draw down U.S. troops immediately wherever the Iraqi forces prove competent.

The whole problem is that the Iraqi Army is coming along so slowly.

You'd think the Shia would be keen to fight al Qaeda, the al Qaeda ideology is even more anti-Shia than anti-American. But the guys in the Iraqi Army don't want to fight ANYBODY away from their home towns. Did you know that Iraqi Army guys travel home once a month to hand-deliver their paychecks to the wife? In Baquaba, which the U.S. just cleared of insurgents, only 2600 of the expected 8,000 Iraqi troops showed up .

We can't wait the 3-5 years for the IRaqi Army to become self-sufficient.

Fortunately, the idea of using local militias to fight al-Qaeda seems to be working. That's why the troops can draw down in the next year.

Why can't we wait more years? Also, I agree about the militia, but it's pretty close to the same thing, right? You just need competent 'policing' with a minimum of ethnic cleansing to hand over the reins. 2600 is still 2600. Basically, there is going to be a drawdown of troops, but unfortunately, there are still going to be IEDs, landmines and sharpshooters for he foreseeable future.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why can't we wait more years? Also, I agree about the militia, but it's pretty close to the same thing, right?

Ummm, arming and co-opting the local militias is tricky in mixed provinces, because that's where the civil war is on the brink of exploding. Anbar is 100% Sunni, so relatively easy. But it's the way to go. The goal is to ultimately incorporate the militias into the regular army, which they've had some success with.

Really, I think the U.S. is doing things right now, problem is its 2 years (at least) too late.

We can't stay in Iraq with high troop levels because the U.S. Army is coming apart at the seams, they are undermanned. Asking guys to serve 15 continuous months in combat is insane. In vietnam, the soldiers got breaks every 6 months. Even iin World War II, there was often down time between the major battles. Those poor bastards in Iraq are under CONSTANT danger, unrelieved stress.
(The marines are getting breaks every six months and have much lower levels of post traumatic stress syndrome than the army and reserve troops.)

The Army Officers who graduated from West Point are leaving the service after their 5-year commitments at an all-time high rate. Uhhh, there are all sorts of indications that the Army is way over-extended. They will be at breaking point next Spring.

blah blah blah. The republicans have to have half the troops out by next summer because of the election.

For a million reasons, all the arguing just comes down to 6 months: the Dems want to start withdrawing this fall. Some repubs, with Bush, wanna wait till spring.

[Joemailman]

Iraq PM: Country Can Manage Without US ‘Any Time They Want’
by Bushra Juhi

BAGHDAD — Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave “any time they want,” though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.

0714 03 1The embattled prime minister sought to show confidence at a time when congressional pressure is growing for a withdrawal and the Bush administration reported little progress had been made on the most vital of a series of political benchmarks it wants al-Maliki to carry out.

Al-Maliki said difficulty in enacting the measures was “natural” given Iraq’s turmoil.

But one of his top aides, Hassan al-Suneid, rankled at the assessment, saying the U.S. was treating Iraq like “an experiment in an American laboratory.” He sharply criticized the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarrassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with “gangs of killers” in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq.

Al-Suneid’s comments were a rare show of frustration toward the Americans from within al-Maliki’s inner circle as the prime minister struggles to overcome deep divisions between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish members of his coalition and enact the American-drawn list of benchmarks.

In new violence in Baghdad on Saturday, a car bomb leveled a two-story apartment building, and a suicide bomber plowed his explosives-packed vehicle into a line of cars at a gas station. The two attacks killed at least eight people, police officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorize to release details of the attacks.

Thursday’s White House assessment of progress on the benchmarks fueled calls among congressional critics of the Iraqi policy for a change in strategy, including a withdrawal of American forces.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari warned earlier this week of civil war and the government’s collapse if the Americans leave. But al-Maliki told reporters Saturday, “We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want.”

But he added that Iraqi forces are “still in need of more weapons and rehabilitation” to be ready in the case of a withdrawal.

On Friday, the Pentagon conceded that the Iraqi army has become more reliant on the U.S. military. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, said the number of Iraqi batallions able to operate on their own without U.S. support has dropped in recent months from 10 to six, though he said the fall was in part due to attrition from stepped-up offensives.

Al-Maliki told a Baghdad press conference that his government needs “time and effort” to enact the political reforms that Washington seeks - “particularly since the political process is facing security, economic and services pressures, as well as regional and international interference.”

“These difficulties can be read as a big success, not negative points, when they are viewed under the shadow of the big challenges,” he said.

In the White House strategy, beefed-up American forces have been waging intensified security crackdowns in Baghdad and areas to the north and south for nearly a month. The goal is to bring quiet to the capital while al-Maliki gives Sunni Arabs a greater role in the government and political process, lessening support for the insurgency.

But the benchmarks have been blocked by divisions among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders. In August, the parliament is taking a one month vacation - a shorter break than the usual two months, but still enough to anger some in Congress who say lawmakers should push through the measures.

Al-Suneid, a Shiite lawmaker close to al-Maliki, bristled at the pressure. He called Thursday’s report “objective,” but added, “this bothers us a lot that the situation looks as if it is an experiment in an American laboratory (judging) whether we succeed or fail.”

He also told The Associated Press that al-Maliki has problems with the top U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus, who works along a “purely American vision.”

He criticized U.S. overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala, encouraging former insurgents to join the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq. “These are gangs of killers,” he said.

“There are disagreements that the strategy that Petraeus is following might succeed in confronting al-Qaida in the early period but it will leave Iraq an armed nation, an armed society and militias,” said al-Suneid.

He said that the U.S. authorities have embarrassed al-Maliki’ government through acts such as constructing a wall around Baghdad’s Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah and repeated raids on suspected Shiite militiamen in the capital’s eastern slum of Sadr City. He said the U.S. use of airstrikes to hit suspected insurgent positions also kills civilians.

“This embarrasses the government in front of its people,” he said, calling the civilian deaths a “human rights violation.”

© 2007 The Associated Press



I don't think the PM is saying he wants the U.S. out now. However, he does know about the debate going on in this country, and I think takes issue with the argument that the country would descend into chaos if the U.S. were to leave. It will be interesting to see if this story gets major play on the Sunday talk shows tomorrow.

[mraynrand]

The Army Officers who graduated from West Point are leaving the service after their 5-year commitments at an all-time high rate.


From the New York Times' Thom Shanker:

Young Officers Leaving Army at a High Rate

WASHINGTON, April 9 — Young Army officers, including growing numbers of captains who leave as soon as their initial commitment is fulfilled, are bailing out of active-duty service at rates that have alarmed senior officers. Last year, more than a third of the West Point class of 2000 left active duty at the earliest possible moment, after completing their five-year obligation.


later, in the same article


In 2001, but before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, 9.3 percent of the Army's young officers left active duty at their first opportunity. By 2002, the number of those junior officers leaving at their first opportunity dropped to 7.1 percent, and in 2003, only 6.3 percent opted out. But the number grew to 8.3 percent in 2004 and 8.6 percent in 2005.

[mraynrand]

IT GETS WORSE!


8,000 desert during Iraq war
By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — At least 8,000 members of the all-volunteer U.S. military have deserted since the Iraq war began, Pentagon records show, although the overall desertion rate has plunged since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.

Since fall 2003, 4,387 Army soldiers, 3,454 Navy sailors and 82 Air Force personnel have deserted. The Marine Corps does not track the number of desertions each year but listed 1,455 Marines in desertion status last September, the end of fiscal 2005, says Capt. Jay Delarosa, a Marine Corps spokesman.


A terrible trend, wouldn't you say? Except......

At least 8,000 members of the all-volunteer U.S. military have deserted since the Iraq war began, Pentagon records show, although the overall desertion rate has plunged since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001. . . .

Desertion numbers have dropped since 9/11. The Army, Navy and Air Force reported 7,978 desertions in 2001, compared with 3,456 in 2005. The Marine Corps showed 1,603 Marines in desertion status in 2001. That had declined by 148 in 2005. . . .

Opposition to the war prompts a small fraction of desertions, says Army spokeswoman Maj. Elizabeth Robbins. "People always desert, and most do it because they don't adapt well to the military," she says. The vast majority of desertions happen inside the USA, Robbins says. There is only one known case of desertion in Iraq.

Most deserters return within months, without coercion. Commander Randy Lescault, spokesman for the Naval Personnel Command, says that between 2001 and 2005, 58% of Navy deserters walked back in.



http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2006/03/06/desertionsdrop.jpg

[mraynrand]

The NYT graph on the West point 'drop outs'

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/09/washington/0410-nat-ARMYclr.gif

[Harlan Huckleby]

mraynrand,

Your graph on West Point retention contradicts what I've heard. And the statement on graph seems to contradict the data. I am curious, do you have the article?

From USA Today, in 2005, retention rates for Navy and Air Force Academy graduates (who hit 5-year service mark) was 92%. West Point had only 62% rejoin.

[Freak Out]

WTF? Nothing about the Bin Laden video?

[Freak Out]

Those numbers make sense just because of the fact that our soldiers are not conscripted.

[mraynrand]

mraynrand,

Your graph on West Point retention contradicts what I've heard. And the statement on graph seems to contradict the data. I am curious, do you have the article?

From USA Today, in 2005, retention rates for Navy and Air Force Academy graduates (who hit 5-year service mark) was 92%. West Point had only 62% rejoin.

It's pretty easy to get the NYT article on a search engine. And for the record, I agree with you that the Army is stretched. But I think the solution is to increase the funding so that you could raise salaries by 20% across the board and increase signing bonuses. That's what I tell my reps in rather pointed letters. If we really support the troops we ought to pony up the money so we can have more rotations out of theater.

But I also feel that overall the press is terribly negative, which also drives down recruiting. I don't think the draft should be reinstated, but a realistic assessment of what's going on in Iraq that doesn't just include IED explosions and casualties might attract more people to volunteer.

[Harlan Huckleby]

But I think the solution is to increase the funding so that you could raise salaries by 20% across the board and increase signing bonuses.

Oh man, I don't believe anybody goes into the Army at this time for the great bennies. It's an act of extreme sacrifice.


we ought to pony up the money so we can have more rotations out of theater.

if it was just a matter of money.... BTW, they ARE trying to substantially increase the size of the military. But that process takes years (according to what I heard from McCain) regardless of any recruiting issues.


But I also feel that overall the press is terribly negative, which also drives down recruiting .

I was a SOLID supporter of the war until fall of 2005 when it became obvious that the political strategy had failed. And I only came around to advocating withdrawal this month. So I've been keen to see any shred of evidence in a positive light.

In hindsight, the media coverage was not a bit too negative. To the contrary: they missed the incompetent decisions made in the first year. And they TOTALLY under-reported the depth of the insurgency later on. And lately, they missed that 4 million people have been displaced, a.k.a. ethnically cleansed, until it all accumlulated.

[mraynrand]

And they TOTALLY under-reported the depth of the insurgency later on. And lately, they missed that 4 million people have been displaced, a.k.a. ethnically cleansed, until it all accumlulated.

You make good points. I would suggest being careful about the two above. Calling it an insurgency - well, you have multiple factors - you have al quaeda working as a an 'Iago' to both Sunni and Shia, you have militias vying for power, and you have some groups specifically trying to rid the country of U.S. troops. So it's certainly more complex than an insurgency - which implies mostly an opposition

Ethnic cleansing - yikes! There's a big difference between people fleeing the country and people being killed. Yes, there's been a lot of ethnic violence - I hear estimates between 200,000 and 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since 2003. But of the 4 million you cite, most of those have fled.

I hope better security can support better political solutions, but that's the key - getting a reasonably strong central government that can stand up to the more corrupt militias (such as Sadr's) and roving criminals.

Harlan, did you ever think it was going to be a short haul? I was thinking at least a generation. I thought the extreme violence would abate sooner, but I attribute a great deal of that to the politicization of the war in the states allowing al quaeda and others in Iraq to imagine that they can eventually win through a defeat of willpower in the U.S. I imagine that had our leadership in Congress been unified and unwavering in saying that we would stay as long as it takes to stabilize the country, a lot of groups in Iraq would have thrown in the towel long ago.

[falco]

Harlan, did you ever think it was going to be a short haul? I was thinking at least a generation.

Its become obvious that it isn't going to be a short haul. But I think a lot of people went out of their way to convince the public otherwise, especially in the run up to things.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, did you ever think it was going to be a short haul? I was thinking at least a generation.

Well ya, a generation to stabilize politically.

I was for the war because of what could be gained. I trusted that they had the resources and wisdom to do the job. And it was the only way to end the mess left behind by the first Gulf War. Sanctions were not working with Hussein; he only allowed inspectors in AFTER the troops were massed in Kuwait.

I would still be for the war if I thought it could be successful. The country does not have the political will to fight long enough, and there are no guarantees that a civil war would ultimately be averted, even after thousands of U.S. lives are sacrificed. IT is not in our control.

Here's a good new article on the tense situation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/world/middleeast/16reconcile.html?pagewanted=1&hp

[Joemailman]

Harlan, did you ever think it was going to be a short haul? I was thinking at least a generation. I thought the extreme violence would abate sooner, but I attribute a great deal of that to the politicization of the war in the states allowing al quaeda and others in Iraq to imagine that they can eventually win through a defeat of willpower in the U.S. I imagine that had our leadership in Congress been unified and unwavering in saying that we would stay as long as it takes to stabilize the country, a lot of groups in Iraq would have thrown in the towel long ago.

The fact is that there were people in the administration who suggested that a long haul would not be necessary. Rumsfeld early on suggested that he felt it would all be over within 6 months. When this did not happen, it caused many in Congress to start questioning whether the administration had a winning strategy. To expect Congress to offer an unwavering and unified front when many had lost confidence in the people making the decisions is in my opinion unrealistic.

[mraynrand]

The reason it's a long haul is that we ended up with a different war than we started with. Overthrowing Hussein was relatively simple, but forming a stable pluralistic society with competing political and religious goals, with al Quaeda in the mix to boot, has been awful. But leaving now means giving southern Iraq to Iran, allowing the Turks to ultimately 'deal with' the Kurds, and giving the Sunni up for slaughter. It may look bad right now, but it can get a whole lot worse. I don't think a simple 'balkanization' of Iraq (the dream of Joe Biden) will even be tenable - more likely it would be the battle ground for a larger regional conflict. Powell was right - we broke it, we bought it.

[Joemailman]

One of the ironies of the situation is that Winston Churchill drew the boundaries for Iraq and would later call it his greatest mistake. Bush idolizes Churchill, and some would say fancies himself a modern day Churchill, but is now stuck with a civil war in a country that Churchill created.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't think a simple 'balkanization' of Iraq (the dream of Joe Biden) will even be tenable

It's already happening, regardless of what we do or want. There is no momentum towards a strong central government. The Shia have already largely cleansed Bhagdhad of Sunni.

Biden was exactly on the money two years ago with his proposal, and most experts are coming around to his view. I forget the poll number, but something like 75% of Iraqis expect the country to split regionally & ethnicly, even if some central government is maintained. That figure was like 25% two years ago.

the best thing that could happen for Iraq would be to hold those friggin provincial elections. This is more important that the oil law, at this point. The U.S. is pushing hard towards local empowerment, both with military and providing services, because it is becoming clearer every day that the central government is lost cause for years to come. Central Gov resists provincial elections ( for two friggin years.)


If you got any stomach for it, here's a proposal that explains how to accomplish a managed soft partition. It requires a long term commitment of U.S. troops.
http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/analysis/june2007iraq_partition.pdf

But don't sprain your brain reading that paper, because there ain't gonna be a managed partition. The country is going to be reorganized with violence, if only because it's too hard and too late for us to do it peacefully.

Here's what's going to happen:
The surge will continue until next spring. I HOPE they can build enough trust and security to bring calm to much of the country. But even they succeed, most likely the civil war is just going to build again as the U.S. troops depart. There will be many years of war, three ethnic regions. In 15 years, the regions will cooperate and federate effectively. This is the sort of timescale seen in Bosnia, Lebannon, etc.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Bush idolizes Churchill, and some would say fancies himself a modern day

There really is no difference between being resolute and being bone-headed stubborn.

If the surge produces results in the longrun, probably history will see Bush as Churchillian. I see about a 20% chance. Not good enough odds to ask an additional 2000 more soldiers to die for.

[Freak Out]

The Iraqi people and their neighbors are going to be the ones who decide what happens in Iraq...not the US. We can fund all the bases and embassies that our mercenaries can build and it will not change the fact the the majority in Iraq is going to rule the country the way THEY want not they way we want. Al Qaida will not tell the Iraqis how to run their country in the end..when they are done fighting us they will take care of Al-Qaida. As our soldiers die in Baghdad the Iraqi parliament heads for the hills to beat the heat...and the bombs. Dubya and his vision (who's vision was it anyway?) for Iraq has been a fantasy the whole time and it will remain such.
And obstinate he remains...his new mideast peace plan does not include Hamas....that's sure to work.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Exit Strategies
Would Iran Take Over Iraq? Would Al-Qaeda? The Debate About How and When to Leave Centers on What Might Happen After the U.S. Goes.
By Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers July 17, 2007; Page A01

If U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three developments would be likely to unfold. Majority Shiites would drive Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province. Southern Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups. And the Kurdish north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there. In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations.

That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly."

In making the case for a continued U.S. troop presence, President Bush has offered far more dire forecasts, arguing that al-Qaeda or Iran -- or both -- would take over Iraq after a "precipitous withdrawal" of U.S. forces. Al-Qaeda, he said recently, would "be able to recruit better and raise more money from which to launch their objectives" of attacking the U.S. homeland. War opponents in Congress counter that Bush's talk about al-Qaeda is overblown fear-mongering and that nothing could be worse than the present situation.

Increasingly, the Washington debate over when U.S. forces should leave is centering on what would happen once they do. The U.S. military, aware of this political battlefield, has been quietly exploring scenarios of a reduced troop presence, performing role-playing exercises and studying historical parallels. Would the Iraqi government find its way, or would the country divide along sectarian lines? Would al-Qaeda take over? Would Iran? Would U.S. security improve or deteriorate? Does the answer depend on when, how and how many U.S. troops depart?

Some military officers contend that, regardless of whether Iraq breaks apart or outside actors seek to take over after a U.S. pullout, ever greater carnage is inevitable. "The water-cooler chat I hear most often . . . is that there is going to be an outbreak of violence when we leave that makes the [current] instability look like a church picnic," said an officer who has served in Iraq.

However, just as few envisioned the long Iraq war, now in its fifth year, or the many setbacks along the way, there are no firm conclusions regarding the consequences of a reduction in U.S. troops. A senior administration official closely involved in Iraq policy imagines a vast internecine slaughter as Iraq descends into chaos but cautions that it is impossible to know the outcome. "We've got to be very modest about our predictive capabilities," the official said.

Mistakes of the Past

In April of last year, the Army and Joint Forces Command sponsored a war game called Unified Quest 2007 at the Army War College in Pennsylvania. It assumed the partition of an "Iraq-like" country, said one player, retired Army Col. Richard Sinnreich, with U.S. troops moving quickly out of the capital to redeploy in the far north and south. "We have obligations to the Kurds and the Kuwaitis, and they also offer the most stable and secure locations from which to continue," he said.

"Even then, the end-of-game assessment wasn't very favorable" to the United States, he said.

Anderson, the retired Marine, has conducted nearly a dozen Iraq-related war games for the military over the past two years, many premised on a U.S. combat pullout by a set date -- leaving only advisers and support units -- and concluded that partition would result. The games also predicted that Iran would intervene on one side of a Shiite civil war and would become bogged down in southern Iraq.

T.X. Hammes, another retired Marine colonel, said that an extended Iranian presence in Iraq could lead to increased intervention by Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states on the other side. "If that happens," Hammes said, "I worry that the Iranians come to the conclusion they have to do something to undercut . . . the Saudis." Their best strategy, he said, "would be to stimulate insurgency among the Shiites in Saudi Arabia."

In a secret war game conducted in December at an office building near the Pentagon, more than 20 participants from the military, the CIA, the State Department and the private sector spent three days examining what might unfold if the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group were implemented.

One question involved how Syria and Iran might respond to the U.S. diplomatic outreach proposed by the bipartisan group, headed by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.). The gamers concluded that Iran would be difficult to engage because its divided government is incapable of delivering on its promises. Role-players representing Syria did engage with the U.S. diplomats, but linked helping out in Baghdad to a lessening of U.S. pressure in Lebanon.

The bottom line, one participant said, was "pretty much what we are seeing" since the Bush administration began intermittent talks with Damascus and Tehran: not much progress or tangible results.

Amid political arguments in Washington over troop departures, U.S. military commanders on the ground stress the importance of developing a careful and thorough withdrawal plan. Whatever the politicians decide, "it needs to be well-thought-out and it cannot be a strategy that is based on 'Well, we need to leave,' " Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, a top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Friday from his base near Tikrit.

History is replete with bad withdrawal outcomes. Among the most horrific was the British departure from Afghanistan in 1842, when 16,500 active troops and civilians left Kabul thinking they had safe passage to India. Two weeks later, only one European arrived alive in Jalalabad, near the Afghan-Indian border.

The Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan, which began in May 1988 after a decade of occupation, reveals other mistakes to avoid. Like the U.S. troops who arrived in Iraq in 2003, the Soviet force in Afghanistan was overwhelmingly conventional, heavy with tanks and other armored vehicles. Once Moscow made public its plans to leave, the political and security situations unraveled much faster than anticipated. "The Soviet Army actually had to fight out of certain areas," said Army Maj. Daniel Morgan, a two-tour veteran of the Iraq war who has been studying the Soviet pullout at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., with an eye toward gleaning lessons for Iraq. "As a matter of fact, they had to airlift out of Kandahar, the fighting was so bad."

War supporters and opponents in Washington disagree on the lessons of the departure most deeply imprinted on the American psyche: the U.S. exit from Vietnam. "I saw it once before, a long time ago," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a Vietnam veteran and presidential candidate, said last week of an early Iraq withdrawal. "I saw a defeated military, and I saw how long it took a military that was defeated to recover."

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), also a White House hopeful, finds a different message in the Vietnam retreat. Saying that Baghdad would become "Saigon revisited," he warned that "we will be lifting American personnel off the roofs of buildings in the Green Zone if we do not change policy, and pretty drastically."

The Al-Qaeda Threat

What is perhaps most striking about the military's simulations is that its post-drawdown scenarios focus on civil war and regional intervention and upheaval rather than the establishment of an al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq.

For Bush, however, that is the primary risk of withdrawal. "It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda," he said in a news conference last week. "It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan." If U.S. troops leave too soon, Bush said, they would probably "have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous."

Withdrawal would also "confuse and frighten friends and allies in the region and embolden Syria and especially Iran, which would then exert its influence throughout the Middle East," the president said.

Bush is not alone in his description of the al-Qaeda threat should the United States leave Iraq too soon. "There's not a doubt in my mind that Osama bin Laden's one goal is to take over the Kingdom of the Two Mosques [Saudi Arabia] and reestablish the caliphate" that ended with the Ottoman Empire, said a former senior military official now at a Washington think tank. "It would be very easy for them to set up camps and run them in Anbar and Najaf" provinces in Iraq.

U.S. intelligence analysts, however, have a somewhat different view of al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq, noting that the local branch takes its inspiration but not its orders from bin Laden. Its enemies -- the overwhelming majority of whom are Iraqis -- reside in Baghdad and Shiite-majority areas of Iraq, not in Saudi Arabia or the United States. While intelligence officials have described the Sunni insurgent group calling itself al-Qaeda in Iraq as an "accelerant" for violence, they have cited domestic sectarian divisions as the main impediment to peace.

In a report released yesterday, Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies warned that al-Qaeda is "only one part" of a spectrum of Sunni extremist groups and is far from the largest or most active. Military officials have said in background briefings that al-Qaeda is responsible for about 15 percent of the attacks, Cordesman said, although the group is "highly effective" and probably does "the most damage in pushing Iraq towards civil war." But its activities "must be kept in careful perspective, and it does not dominate the Sunni insurgency," he said.

'Serious Consequences'

Moderate lawmakers such as Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) have concluded that a unified Iraqi government is not on the near horizon and have called for redeployment, change of mission and a phased drawdown of U.S. forces. Far from protecting U.S. interests, Lugar said in a recent speech, the continuation of Bush's policy poses "extreme risks for U.S. national security."

Critics of complete withdrawal often charge that "those advocating [it] just don't understand the serious consequences of doing so," said Wayne White, a former deputy director of Near East division of the State Department's Intelligence and Research Bureau. "Unfortunately, most of us old Middle East hands understand all too well some of the consequences."

White is among many Middle East experts who think that the United States should leave Iraq sooner rather than later, but differ on when, how and what would happen next. Most agree that either an al-Qaeda or Iranian takeover would be unlikely, and say that Washington should step up its regional diplomacy, putting more pressure on regional actors such as Saudi Arabia to take responsibility for what is happening in their back yards.

Many regional experts within and outside the administration note that while there is a range of truly awful possibilities, it is impossible to predict what will happen in Iraq -- with or without U.S. troops.

"Say the Shiites drive the Sunnis into Anbar," one expert said of Anderson's war-game scenario. "Well, what does that really mean? How many tens of thousands of people are going to get killed before all the surviving Sunnis are in Anbar?" He questioned whether that result would prove acceptable to a pro-withdrawal U.S. public.

White, speaking at a recent symposium on Iraq, addressed the possibility of unpalatable withdrawal consequences by paraphrasing Winston Churchill's famous statement about democracy. "I posit that withdrawal from Iraq is the worst possible option, except for all the others."