McCain vs. Obama: Al Qaeda in Iraq

[WildCat]

Their purpose for being in Afghanistan wasn't to attack the Soviets.

OBL went to Afghanistan specificaly to attack the Soviets. He actually played a very minor role there, but that's neither here nor there.

After the Soviets left, he stayed and formed al Qaeda using Afghanistan as a training camp after allying himself with the Taliban.

Why would al Qaeda abandon Iraq simply because we left? It gives them access to Saudi Arabia (whose rulers OBL hates as much as the US), and there are Sunni factions there sympathetic to their cause. The Sunnis there, IMHO, would take any help they can get against the majority Shia in the civil strife sure to come upon our pullout.

In short, al Qaeda has a strategic interest in Iraq with or without the US being there.

 

[Tricky]

OBL went to Afghanistan specifically to attack the Soviets. He actually played a very minor role there, but that's neither here nor there.

After the Soviets left, he stayed and formed al Qaeda using Afghanistan as a training camp after allying himself with the Taliban.

Why would al Qaeda abandon Iraq simply because we left? It gives them access to Saudi Arabia (whose rulers OBL hates as much as the US), and there are Sunni factions there sympathetic to their cause. The Sunnis there, IMHO, would take any help they can get against the majority Shia in the civil strife sure to come upon our pullout.

In short, al Qaeda has a strategic interest in Iraq with or without the US being there.

Because the Iraqis don't really like AQ. Already they are being rejected by more and more villages and having a hard time finding "hospitality". They have no history there and so no established network.

Also, with the exception of a strip at the far north, the terrain is not really good for protection. The whole reason that both the Soviets and the combined forces of the west have been unable to get them out of Afghanistan and Pakistan is because they are able to dig themselves in to those mountainous regions. I strongly suspect that one of the main reasons for invading Iraq rather than strengthening the forces in Afghanistan was because the idiots in the Bush administration thought it would be easy to steamroll them there, win a big impressive victory and then have all that public adulation for "fighting terrorism" without the difficulties of fighting it where it is hard to get tanks into.

But if Al Qaeda is in Iraq, then they are most certainly in Iran. Is McCain thinking of sending in troops there? If so, then he's going to be tremendously unpopular. If not, then using AQ's presence in Iraq as a pretense for staying is pretty much a red herring.

 

[headscratcher4]

They didn't leave Afghanistan after the Soviets left, why do you think they'd leave Iraq if we left?

Because they were able to be sustained by locals in Afghanastan...and that is far less certain in Iraq.

First, the majority of the Iraqi population is Shia. They are heratics, according to the AlQeda and this even worse than Americans. So, Shia -- supported by Iran -- will fight AlQeda as a religious duty and part of their own self protection.

Second, the Kurds make up a large population segment. The Kurds are not Arabs. Their not historically interested in restoring a "Caliphate" so much as they are establishing an indipendent Kurdish homeland. Indeed, their inspriation has been Marxist and Marxist revolutionary. Their revolts have been secular and nationalist. Their home land incompasses not just Iraq, but also Turkey, Syria and Iran. They've little interest in following religiously driven Arab fighters...many see their battles as agains Arabs. They will in short, limit ALQeda's ability to win in Iraq.

Third, secular Sunni's exist in Iraq. They are often former Baathist, they are secular, quasi-socialist and quasi facists. They may work in concert with AlQeda -- and have -- but they see their struggle in terms of an indipendent Iraq run by them...putting the Kurds and Shia in their proper place (i.e. a return to the old order). However, there are enough seculars among them that they will ultimately not support AlQeda and be very suspicious of the forigen element tha AlQesa brings to the fray. They want America gone, they also don't want to be dominated by Saudi or other Arabs. To the extent that AlQeda in Iraq is an internationalist movement...it wil fail.

Fourth, AlQeda didn't win in Afghanastan...the Taliban did. The Taliban were Afghan/Pakistani tribal groups that embraced a certain kind of Islamism as part of their battle against the Central state. The Taliban were a home grown movement of the tribal areas. They accepted AlQeda support, but the Taliban and AlQeda are different. AlQeda never ruled Afghanastan, the Taliban did. The Taliban gave AlQeda heaven and embraced much of the AlQeda message...but the Taliban were really concentrating on securing their own gains in Afghanastan and the in the tribal areas of Pakistan, it was a full time job.

The point is that while those who became AlQesa helped throw the Soviets and their puppets out of Afghanastan -- as did the US, BTW -- it was a Taliban victory not an AlQeda movement.

At most, in Iraq, it would seem that whatever AlQeda in Iraq is, it isn't currently a movement likely to take the country...rather a movement more likely to be a persistent pain in the side of any government in the region. Not unlike the anarchists and social revolutionaries at the turn of the 20th Century.

The question than becomes: should we stay to fight them? If we are gone, ALQeda in Iraq will continue to pick at the Iraqi state, but there seems little that would lead one to the conclusion that they would be able to focus much effort beyond their struggle for the Iraqi state. In other words, they will be focused on their battle for Iraq, not -- like the AlQeda in Afghanastan/Pakistan -- focused on extra-territorial assults. Next, it is a minority movement -- even our own intelligence and military puts them at a core handful (a couple of thousand, I think) out of a population of many million. Third, most of the local elements while thirsty to see the Americans go and go soon, would not embrace AlQeda as leaders of a new Iraq -- the Shia alone can be counted on to kill as many as they can find.

So, ultimately, AlQeda in Iraq exists and acts almost precisely because we are there. Without our presense to sustaint their battle cry and to engender sympathy among locals who want Iraq for Iraqis, they would be, IMO, even more minor players than we are.

In this regard, this Administration has really dropped the ball because the most dangerous AlQeda is the one we fight in Afghanastan/Pakistan...the one we've put far fewer resources into fighting.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Tricky, did you ever consider a city as urban terrain, where people can hide? The Army and Marines refer to an entire discipline as "Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain" for a very good reason.

(JCS Pub 1-02  Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain

See also the concept of "concrete jungle."

Iraq has more large cities than Afghanistan. More people.

See Mao, and his guidance to insurgents to "swim among the fish."

Granted, a lot of the fish in Iraq are very wary of these sharks. As chaotic as Iraq is likely to be for the next five years, your appeal to a terrain model as the prime means of cover and concealment is well off the mark.

DR

 

[WildCat]

Because the Iraqis don't really like AQ. Already they are being rejected by more and more villages and having a hard time finding "hospitality". They have no history there and so no established network.

Except they've already been there and done that! They controlled most of the Sunni towns along the Euphrates River until a concerted effort was made to root them out from 2004-2006 (how soon you have forgotten Fallujah, the retaking of which cost over 50 Marines their lives). And while many of the Sunnis there didn't like them, it was only the support of the US military that got them out.

Just as a ruthless street gang supported by only a few percent of the populace can take control of entire neighborhoods in a city, al Qaeda (more ruthless than any street gang btw) managed to take control of large swaths of Iraq. Fear and ruthlessness goes a long way for making up for lack of popular support.

 

[marksman]

But if Al Qaeda is in Iraq, then they are most certainly in Iran.

Wha? What makes you think Al Qaeda, a Sunni Caliphatist organization would be in Iran, a Shia hidden-imam nation?

Is McCain thinking of sending in troops there?

It's Obama, not McCain, who said he'd send in troops to go after Al Qaeda in Iraq. You should be asking that silly question to Obama.

If not, then using AQ's presence in Iraq as a pretense for staying is pretty much a red herring.

It also begs the question as to why Obama cited Al Qaeda's presence as a reason to go back into Iraq after leaving.

 

[Bododio]

Thanks for playing.

Al Qaeda functions as an extranational network. If you choose to trap yourself into old fashioned thinking, as expressed via your (Obama's) vocabulary, you emhpasize miscomprehension of what Al Qaeda is, and how it operates.

There was some evidence of a few Al Q sorts in Iraq before we went in, however their ability to function was significantly hampered by Saddam's security aparatus. As noted above, the ability to recruit and draw in sympathetic foot soldiers from other countries was a key opportunity provided to Al Q by the American breaking of Saddam's government, aided and abetted by leaving a power vacuum (fire the Iraqi Army) in place long enough for others to rush in and fill what they could.

DR

There's no miscomprehension on my part as to how al qaeda operates. We may, however, argue about the best words to describe it. The question is, and it's an important one, what do the candidates know or believe about the situation in Iraq. Is Obama's wording merely unfortunate, does he have some knowledge about the situation in Iraq we don't, or is he out of touch with reality? The distinction is worth considering because there's a good chance one of these 2 guys will be the next US president.

All that said, I'd like to believe that Obama is keenly aware of the situation in Iraq, used less than perfect wording in his statement, and McCain, ever the opportunistic politico, used (or has been said previously, "twisted") it to his perceived advantage.

 

[Sefarst]

Also, with the exception of a strip at the far north, the terrain is not really good for protection. The whole reason that both the Soviets and the combined forces of the west have been unable to get them out of Afghanistan and Pakistan is because they are able to dig themselves in to those mountainous regions. I strongly suspect that one of the main reasons for invading Iraq rather than strengthening the forces in Afghanistan was because the idiots in the Bush administration thought it would be easy to steamroll them there, win a big impressive victory and then have all that public adulation for "fighting terrorism" without the difficulties of fighting it where it is hard to get tanks into.

But isn't it the popular position that there was no Taliban or Al Qaeda in Iraq before we got there? How then were "the idiots" of the Bush administration planning to steamroll them there?

But if Al Qaeda is in Iraq, then they are most certainly in Iran. Is McCain thinking of sending in troops there? If so, then he's going to be tremendously unpopular. If not, then using AQ's presence in Iraq as a pretense for staying is pretty much a red herring.

Now you're trying to turn the argument around. It was OBAMA who used Al Qaeda as a pretext for attacking a country (it was he who said he would go back into Iraq if Al Qaeda established a base there). So, this question is better phrased to an Obama supporter. McCain doesn't just support staying in Iraq because Al Qaeda is there, he recognizes the deeper need for political stability and more long term goals as well. It's Obama holding the knee-jerk position here. So send a letter to the Obama campaign asking them, "If Barack Obama supports going back into Iraq after leaving if Al Qaeda establishes itself there, wouldn't he also support invading Iran if Al Qaeda is there? He's going to be awfully unpopular..."

 

[Sefarst]

All that said, I'd like to believe that Obama is keenly aware of the situation in Iraq, used less than perfect wording in his statement, and McCain, ever the opportunistic politico, used (or has been said previously, "twisted") it to his perceived advantage.

At least you're honest about your dishonesty. You are choosing to believe that Obama made a simple mistake while McCain is an opportunistic bad guy. If only reality worked that way!

 

[joobz]

Now you're trying to turn the argument around. It was OBAMA who used Al Qaeda as a pretext for attacking a country (it was he who said he would go back into Iraq if Al Qaeda established a base there).

I think it only right to present what was actually said.
Just to make sure that no one is missunderstanding what was said.

But also, do you reserve a right as
American president to go back into Iraq once you have withdrawn with sizable troops in order to quell any kind of insurrection or civil war?

Now, I always reserve the right for the president -- as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American
homeland and our interests abroad. So that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places. That's part of my argument with respect to Pakistan.
I think we should always cooperate with our allies and sovereign nations in making sure that we are rooting out terrorist organizations. But if they are planning attacks on Americans like what happened on 9/11, it is my job, it will be my job as president to make sure that we are hunting them down.

 

[Pardalis]

Because the Iraqis don't really like AQ. Already they are being rejected by more and more villages and having a hard time finding "hospitality". They have no history there and so no established network.

I think so too, more and more Iraqi insurgents seem to fight against AQ as well. Let's hope when they secure their democracy that they will purge them from their country entirely.

 

[headscratcher4]

I think it only right to present what was actually said.
Just to make sure that no one is missunderstanding what was said.

Why would you want to bring the actual words in? McCain is too old to understand them in context and the public too shallow to hear them. It is much better to willfully misinterprtet them...it makes for a better campaign.

 

[T.A.M.]

I guess I should have been clearer. My suggestion was suppose to be that if the USA leaves Iraq, there will be no reason for Al-Qaeda to be ACTIVE there (ie bombing, killing, etc...) and so therefore, i suspect they will not be seen there.

Will they use Iraq as a "base" in order to regroup...perhaps, but Al-Qaeda members can likely be found doing the same in UAE, Egypt, and Pakistan...will McCain et al take American Soldiers into these countries as well?

TAM

 

[headscratcher4]

I think so too, more and more Iraqi insurgents seem to fight against AQ as well. Let's hope when they secure their democracy that they will purge them from their country entirely.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make. McCain said yesterday that if we left Iraq, there is no doubt that AlQeda in Iraq would take the country. Bull Sh.... No Doubt? What about the majority Shiia population? What about the secular Iraqi Nationalists? What about the Kurds? What about Iran? THere is EVERY doubt that ALQeda in Iraq would survive. They exist first and formost because they are fighting the US, without the US, their reason for being in Iraq would evaporate. That isn't to say they'd be gone, but that they would be fully understood to be the marginal terrorists that they are...not the vangaurd of a great, internationalist AlQeda movement...

Which, BTW, is centered in the Tribal areas of Pakistan...not Iraq.

What isn't being said in this whole discussion is that itisn't AlQeda that really concerns Bush and even McCain in Iraq...it is Iran. Bush set up a situation that completely benefits Iran. Its influence over the majority population of Iraq is strong -- and will likely remain so, as the SHARE A LONG BORDER and have for thousands of years! No matter what we do in Iraq, the Shiia are going to look to Iran for guidence and insperation and trade -- it won't always be an easy road, but it is inevitable.

Saddam, for all of his murderous evilness, was our proxy (intentionally and unintentionally) for keeping Iran at bay in the region. We've removed Saddam. It is unlikely that the Sunni Arabs (THAT MEANS ALQEDA followers) will ever dominate the region in an offical way (as the state) again, and that Iran achieves its goal of becoming a major regional power. Thank you George Bush.

However, what is left out here, it seems to me, is that Iran can be dealt with...and not by Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran. Why should we talk? Because -- as others have noted, we both want to destroy AlQeda and that kind of radical sunni Islam. Because for all of his bluster, Ajmadiniajad (sp?) is more puppet than real leader, and the Ayatollah's will opt for security for their regime first -- even if it means that Isreal isn't "wiped off the face of the earth." Because there is growing dissatisfaction within Iran for the regime that is muted by nationalist pleas made by the government against the US, that deflect politics from real issues that exist in the economy.

And on and on.


One is brought to wonder if we couldn't have bought more and better security for the $3 Trillion or so this war has thus far cost. That alone is enough to keep McCain from the Whte House...he thinks that the investment is now finally paying off....

 

[marksman]

Al-Qaeda members can likely be found doing the same in UAE, Egypt, and Pakistan...will McCain et al take American Soldiers into these countries as well?

Ask Obama. He's the one who cited Al Qaeda bases as a reason to re-invade Iraq, not McCain. McCain just called Obama on a factual error.

Sheesh, I'm voting for Obama over McCain. Stop making me defend McCain, people!

 

[joobz]

Ask Obama. He's the one who cited Al Qaeda bases as a reason to re-invade Iraq, not McCain. McCain just called Obama on a factual error.

Sheesh, I'm voting for Obama over McCain. Stop making me defend McCain, people!

Actually, Obama said he'd go back in if it represented a threat to the US or US interests. He even went one step further to say:

So that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places.

He used that point to highlight his reasons for focusing on Pakistan.


I'm confused by what you call a factual error?

 

[Sefarst]

I think it only right to present what was actually said.
Just to make sure that no one is missunderstanding what was said.

How does that contradict anything I said? Russert gives a very clear context for the question and Obama gives an affirmation.

Again, I think Obama supporters should ask the Obama campaign to clarify and ask if that's what he actually meant. It certainly seems like that is his position. And, as far as I know, Obama has yet to deny that it was his meaning in his spat with McCain. Rather than say, "wait, let me tell you what I actually meant," Obama went for a dodge and a red herring by crying that Al Qaeda wouldn't have gone to Iraq in the first place if we hadn't invaded. That point is true and also immaterial to the discussion.

And once again, in reference to Tricky's Iran comment about McCain, the ball is in Obama's court, not McCain's to answer that question. So far, it seems Obama supports going after Al Qaeda in Iraq and Pakistan. A fair question seems to me to be, "what about Iran?"

 

[Darth Rotor]

There's no miscomprehension on my part as to how al qaeda operates. We may, however, argue about the best words to describe it. The question is, and it's an important one, what do the candidates know or believe about the situation in Iraq.

Agreed.

Is Obama's wording merely unfortunate, does he have some knowledge about the situation in Iraq we don't, or is he out of touch with reality? The distinction is worth considering because there's a good chance one of these 2 guys will be the next US president.

I have no such worries about McCain. I have reservations in re Obama, as I did in re W, though I was heartened that Cheney and Powell would be on his team. As it turns out, the addition of Rummy and the estrangement between Powell and Cheney turns out to have been a bad mix.

All that said, I'd like to believe that Obama is keenly aware of the situation in Iraq, used less than perfect wording in his statement, and McCain, ever the opportunistic politico, used (or has been said previously, "twisted") it to his perceived advantage.

While that is probably how it played out, I have no such confidence in Obama's perceptions, as I don't know who his foreign and defense policy advisors are.

DR

 

[headscratcher4]

Whatever Obama said...right or wrong...McCain's assertion that withdrawl will inevitably ( "undoubtedly" was the word he used) lead to AlQeda taking over Iraq has gone essentially uncontested by the media. And it is wrong. No one seriously believe -- regardless of the very real threat that AlQeda may pose to Iraqi stability -- that AlQeda can win in Iraq... They'd have to subdue the majority Shiia and the Kurds. And, they would invite an invasion form Iran...which, interestingly, might bring the US back in on the side of AlQeda. Hmmmm.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I think it only right to present what was actually said.
Just to make sure that no one is missunderstanding what was said.

I think we should always cooperate with our allies and sovereign nations in making sure that we are rooting out terrorist organizations.

OK, at face value, Obama supports the Turkish incursions into Iraq to hunt down and destroy PKK cells. I suspect Talibani doesn't mind it himself, as it hurts his political opponent within the Kurdish bloc.

DR