Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Did anyone else doubt this?
Posted by: McQ on Monday, December 05, 2005

Sometimes I wonder about the news media. This has been known for how long?
Iraqis, rather than foreign fighters, now form the vast majority of the insurgents who are waging a ferocious guerrilla war against United States forces in Sunni western Iraq, American commanders have revealed.

Their conclusion, disclosed to the Sunday Telegraph in interviews over 10 days in battle-torn Anbar province, contradicts the White House message that outsiders are the principal enemy in Iraq.
As quoted in a June 21st post here at QandO, Gen Vines said:
There are four broad groups, I think, within this insurgency, and the insurgency, quite honestly, is quite narrow. The level of support for violence is pretty narrow. The jihadists or the Zarqawi elements—sometimes referred to the al Qaeda and associated movements here in country—that number is not very large, but it is very violent. It has access to some technical capability, and it uses foreign fighters, historically, primarily to murder other Iraqis. It brings in foreigners, and they kill themselves and others, sometimes in vehicles, sometimes with—they'll put a vest on and detonate it among a group. And it's—so foreigners that are brought in typically do things that Iraqis won't do to each other. That's the history of them.

There are also some Sunni religious extremists within the country. That is also a fairly narrow group. Their opposition to the new government is based on religious objections. Again, that group is quite small, but it is very violent.

Then, there's some regime elements who essentially—a broader group, a few thousand, perhaps, and if they had a bumper sticker it would probably say, "If you like Saddam, you'd love us," because they want to resume power. And then, there's also some—a broader group of principally Sunni, but a large—a fairly significant number of Iraqis want to see all foreign forces leave the country, and that's understandable. We have no long-term objectives here.
The military has been saying for months that in numbers, the foreign element is not a very large element, but it makes up for that with its violence. In fact estimates are that foreign jihadists only make up about 5 -10% of the whole of the 4 groups Vines discusses.
The insurgents have the support of most locals. "They have the ability to move freely around the city," said Capt Twain Hickman, the commander of India Company of the 3/7 US Marines battalion. "That means they can attack at a time of their choosing."
Well yes, and that is why it makes more sense to have Iraqis fight the counterinsurgency battle instead of US forces (after all, the Iraqis speak the language, understand the cultural nuances, aren't "occupiers", and do, after Dec. 15, represent a legitimate authority).

But, that certainly doesn't mean the US effort to hunt and kill foreign fighters, regardless of their relatively small size, isn't a productive effort.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
It’s amazing that the dems and lefties discover things that have been going on all along and then claim them as their own. They’ve recently announced that their plan is to train Iraqis to take over security so some of our troops can come home. Duh!
 
Written By: Abu Qa’Qa
URL: http://
It’s amazing that the dems and lefties discover things that have been going on all along and then claim them as their own
Bush’s recent speech was remarkable in that for the first time, he acknowledged that the insurgency is not some unified, monolithic group of "terrorists," but has many elements, including foreign fighters. Pundits on the left and right observed that the White House was finally being somewhat realistic about the make up of the insurgency.

As the cited portion of the Telegraph (a conservative paper) article notes, up until now it has been the White House claiming that the insurgency is made up primarliy of foreign fighters, or at least that is what the White House has been implying, by failing to distinguish between home-grown insurgents and foreign Jihaditsts.

Just two weeks ago Rumsfeld made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows aruging that if we pull out, Iraq would fall into the hands of Zarqawi and his ilk.

Time and again, pundits on the left have argued that Bush and the White House were conflating the foreign fighters with the home-grown insurgents. They have argued that the overemphasis of the role of foreign fighters (by, for instance, arguing they would take over Iraq if we pulled out) blurs the true nature of the insurgency in Iraq. Obviously, the Bush Whtie House has had an interest in overemphasizing the role of foreign fighters in an effort to tie Iraq to the larger war on international jihadism.

So today we get an idiotic statement from Abu that says that the Left is finally discovering that the insurgency is not primarily made up of foreign fighters.

Abu, did your momma drop you on your head? Can’t you read? It is the WHITE HOUSE that has been overemphasizing the role of foreign fighters.

As for the press finally figuring out that the insurgency is primarly home grown, BS. I have read article after article after article describing the true nature of the insurgency. These stories have been in the press for literally years.

The only reason why any of this is news is because the WHITE HOUSE is finally acknowledging this fact, even though it also continues with the rhetoric that Iraq would fall into Zarqawi’s hands if we pulled out.

And instead of going after the White House for being so obtuse about the situation for years, McQ, ever the faithful water carrier for Bush, goes after the press.


 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Bush’s recent speech was remarkable in that for the first time, he acknowledged that the insurgency is not some unified, monolithic group of "terrorists," but has many elements, including foreign fighters.
You are so remarkably full of shit it’s hard to know where to start. 15 seconds on Google seemed like a goof place, though. From an interview with the VP:
"You’ve got different kinds of people involved in the process. I think most of the suicide bombers are jihadists, people from outside Iraq. ... Then you’ve got others who I think are tied into the former regime, Saddam loyalists. ... Remember, shortly before we took Baghdad, Saddam Hussein released all the convicted criminals in all the prisons all over Iraq, so they’re on the street, too.
From a Bush speech mid-2005...
[Foreign fighters] are making common cause with criminal elements, Iraqi insurgents, and remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime who want to restore the old order.

So, uh, oops.

The only argument the WH has made is that the suicide bombers are primarily foreigners.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
These stories have been in the press for literally years.

More than 2 and less than 3. Yep, practically forever.

The only reason why any of this is news is because the WHITE HOUSE is finally acknowledging this fact, even though it also continues with the rhetoric that Iraq would fall into Zarqawi’s hands if we pulled out.

So what? That hasn’t effected operational planning in Iraq. It also does not prove the "rhetoric" false.

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
“Bush’s recent speech was remarkable in that for the first time, he acknowledged that the insurgency is not some unified, monolithic group of "terrorists," but has many elements, including foreign fighters. Pundits on the left [Modo?] and right observed that the White House was finally being somewhat realistic about the make up of the insurgency. “
I believe that we have discovered another avid reader of the email described in the Belgravia Dispatch :
“…Dowd’s little screed [about the 100 categories] is the second most E-mailed story of the day over at the NYT, and likely a lot of people are reading it and swallowing it hook, line and sinker through the Upper West Side and other such enclaves where foreign policy is imbibed through Hollywoodish, bubble-gum lens, in the main...”
I’m guessing that MK is on the mailing list for this second most e-mailed story of the day. As to the hook, line and sinker….
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
You are so remarkably full of shit it’s hard to know where to start. 15 seconds on Google seemed like a goof place, though. From an interview with the VP:
Yes, and? I said this is the first time BUSH said something. And you respond that CHENEY said something. And I’m the one full of shit? Right, Jon. Kust keep carrying that water.

As for Bush’s statement that the Jihadis are making "common cause" with the insurgents, I’m not sure how that shows they are not part of the same "monolithic" group. In fact, it shows the opposite. Indeed, if you read the rest of the speech, all Bush talks about is "terrorists," without making any distinctions.

Bush can’t admit that the Iraqi Sunni insurgency has no designs on blowing up Topeka or Tacoma. Bush can’t tell the American people that most of them are simply fighting for their own naked self-interests in Iraq. To do so would mean we are simply there to help the other side get their piece of the pie. Bush can’t be straight with the American people. It just isn’t in him.




 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Lets see.


The Army is paying the Iraqi press to help its PR. We are setting monthly records in us casualaties. Billions of dollars are missing. The Iraqi army is int the hands of the Iranian militias. The president has acknowleged that we are predominately fighting Iraqi nationalists and not terrorists. Both the house and the senate seem on the verge of breaking out into a fist fight.


With all thats going on, you rant on John Kerry. You folks b*tch about people not being able to get over that fact that we started the war on bad information one minute and then when things are going badly for your guy want to thump the only person in the country less popular than GW.


Is there anyone in the country whose opinion matters less? His name is the answer to next years trivail pursuit question. Who lost to Bush in an honest election?


1. Alf Landon
2. John Kerry
3. John McCain
4. Milard Filmore


Can we talk about REAL issues please.

 
Written By: cindy
URL: http://
The Army is paying the Iraqi press to help its PR.

In time of war I’d be disappointed if they weren’t. It’s a part of Psyops ... perhaps you’ve heard of it ... propaganda?

All the big countries are doing it. Even some political parties.

Why? Because it works. It’s effective. It gets our story out told the way we want it told. And if that means it saves some American lives, I’m all for it.

Go figure.

Is there anyone in the country whose opinion matters less?

Only yours, Cindy.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Yes, and? I said this is the first time BUSH said something. And you respond that CHENEY said something. And I’m the one full of shit? Right, Jon. Kust keep carrying that water.
Clearly, reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits. If you’ll look at my comment again, you’ll note that I specifically quoted Bush:
From a Bush speech mid-2005...
[Foreign fighters] are making common cause with criminal elements, Iraqi insurgents, and remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime who want to restore the old order.
That’s FOUR separate groups Bush listed—3 of which were Iraqi.

I recall the administration being perfectly explicit about the makeup of the insurgency, but I wanted to make sure I gave specific evidence. So I checked. Finding that took me seconds, so I really doubt that’s the only instance.

And, btw, Cheney is perfectly relevant, since you said it was the "WHITE HOUSE" that was claiming otherwise.

I do hope you have the decency to be properly embarrassed about just making shit up. If you’d rather not, I’ll be happy to find additional instances of the "WHITE HOUSE" specifying the categories of the insurgency.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
the only person in the country less popular than GW

I’m sure that lots of people are less popular than George Washington.

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
MKoyote 0 Jon lebenty leben
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider