Al Qaeda Crippled By U.S. Strategy

National Review Online: Security And Intelligence Progress Is Happening Silently In Iraq

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Pete Hegseth.

---

As the director of an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran’s organization, I follow the headlines from Iraq very closely. So, it’s always news to me when there is little news from Iraq…at least from the mainstream media.

Over the last few weeks, with the exception of the unfortunate Blackwater story, headlines from Iraq have been few and far between.

Why is this the case? There must be a reason. And I believe the reason is rooted both in what has happened and what has not.

Two weeks ago, at the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, al Qaeda declared that it would escalate attacks and specifically target leaders who were cooperating with Iraqi security forces. (This strategy, in and of itself, is a sign that al Qaeda fears the growing strength of Sunni tribal cooperation). But instead of escalating attacks, the U.S. military reports that violence across Iraq during Ramadan dropped by 40 percent compared to last year. In addition, mass-casualty producing, spectacular attacks -- long a hallmark of al Qaeda -- have occurred with far less frequency.

This is not to say they cannot still deliver such attacks, but the new U.S. strategy has crippled them. Don’t just take my word for it; listen to the latest al Qaeda “martyr,” Abu Osama al-Tunisi. In a handwritten note found at the site of his death, the al Qaeda in Iraq No. 2 wrote, “I have been surrounded…for two and a half months because the road has been closed by the Apostate, and there is no other way,” he added, “We are so desperate for your help.” The words of this high-ranking al Qaeda member speak volumes, and underscore the now undeniable counter-narrative happening in Iraq.

While the mainstream media reports on roadside bombs and missed benchmarks, American soldiers -- along with Iraqi security forces -- continue to make great security gains (which are the necessary pre-condition for real political progress).

As for what has not happened, there is a number that may or may not make headlines tomorrow: 62. This is the number of American combat deaths in September, and happens to be the lowest since August of last year. And while this number is still too high, it is nonetheless relevant. Despite a counter-insurgency strategy that makes U.S. troops more “vulnerable,” American deaths have dropped. American troops have moved off of large, secure bases and into small security stations throughout the country -- yet American deaths, after a spike from April to June, have begun to drop.

Why? Because when Americans protect the population from al Qaeda attacks and Iranian-baked militias -- and hunt down those responsible for sectarian violence -- they gain the trust of locals and thereby gain access to intelligence. And this intelligence -- as any soldier or Marine infantryman will tell you -- is the crown jewel of counter-insurgency. Intelligence, and the ability to decipher between civilians and combatants, allows Americans and Iraqi security forces to go on the offensive. So, while seemingly more exposed, they are actually empowered and protected.

This is good news -- and the kind of news that everyone following the Iraq war debate should know. But I’m satisfied with silence, because the sounds of silent progress in Iraq will eventually overcome the steady drumbeat of defeat here at home.

Unless Congress surrenders first…

[xzavierbrown]

its the ''cornered animal'' reaction from al queda..eventually will be dealt with.

[klifton2-2009]

The Korean war was essentially about stopping the perceived rising tide of communism in South East Asia. America used the domino effect as an excuse and an analogy to wage war in that part of the world. The thinking then was if one country fell to communism the rest would fall like dominoes. It did not happen but it was an effective scare tactic to get support from the American public very much like the scare tactic used by Bush about Al Queda etc. The American public, unfortunately is incapable of learning about the deviousness of their public officials, the president not excluded. The Korean war was conducted in the right place but for the wrong reason. In the case of Iraq, it is a conflict of choice by deception. It is the wrong enemy in the wrong place for personal reasons, and that is why it is a crime against humanity and a war crime act.

[alanrobisch]

In other Right Wing "News", unicorns are REAL!!!!,....
and Bat Boy from Mars weds Wolf Girl,.....

Posted by veteran71 at 06:34 PM : Oct 02, 2007

I can see we have another member of the intelligenstia adding their insightful comments

[alanrobisch]

The most public flak Truman got was when he fired MacArthur because MacArthur wanted to go against the direction of his commander-in-chief and invade mainland China. That hardly sounds like an anti-Korean-war citizenry, does it?

Posted by Quatrops at 08:44 PM : Oct 02, 2007

Fascinating but I might mention one interesting fact truman had a 22% favorable rating when he left office in 1952. this was because of an unpopular war in which many more people died in one month than have died in the entire war in Iraq. We nearly got shoved off the korean peninsula. We misjudged the intentions of the chineese and many americans lost their lives when the chineese crossed the yalu en mass and caused americans to retreat. Talk about mishandling a war.

[quatrops]

Wrong again, robisch2! The Korean war was NOT as unpopular as the current one. I know. I was there. Additionally, we did not have a volunteer army at the time. Most of those that served in Korea were DRAFTED!

You, and others, keep making a big deal out of the fact that the troops (supposedly) support the war. What would you expect? That''s their JOB! It''s the work they have chosen to do! With 2/3 of Americans against this war, do you think if there was a draft that the troops would "support the war"?

Your comparison of this war and the Korean war is, like so many of yours, an "apples & oranges" one.

The most public flak Truman got was when he fired MacArthur because MacArthur wanted to go against the direction of his commander-in-chief and invade mainland China. That hardly sounds like an anti-Korean-war citizenry, does it?

[klifton2-2009]

Corrections:
I mean... "no time for violence.." and "...because of the evil of some...."

[klifton2-2009]

A military solution to problems emboldens resistance, it treats the symptoms and fails to address the cause or causes of the dissatisfaction, real or perceived. Communism was not defeated by military action, it was defeated by effective economic means to better the lives of the disenfranchised. When supporters of violence have jobs, a reasonable standard of living to look after their families, even-handed approach by the West in dealing with their problems, and a genuine desire to improve their overall standard of living, they (the supporters) would have time for violence, because they will be too occupied with economic activities. Deprive them of these basics and treat them inhumanly, they will be inhuman. Treat a man like an animal and he WILL become an animal. Granted there are violent individuals hell bent on hurting others, much like what America streets have in abundance; thugs, criminals, and murderers. However, an entire population must not be indicted because of evil of some, if such is the case then all Americans are complitcit in Bush misdeeds.

[alanrobisch]

bizzzz... wrong again, numbnuts.

Posted by WogerWabbit at 04:55 PM : Oct 02, 2007

besides the need to insult what are your credentials?

[wogerwabbit]

bizzzz... wrong again, numbnuts.

[bizzzz-2009]

I LOVE ALL THESE LIBERAL MILITARY EXPERTS. I BET YOU THERE''S NOT ONE LIBERAL ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD THAT HAS SERVED, BUT THERE SURE ARE ALOT OF EXPERTS

[alanrobisch]

get fired, hands down. What hint does Mr. bush need that has not been clearly given to it already? What is missing here?


Posted by knyghtwolf at 10:02 AM : Oct 02

I would remind you that the korean war was less popular and truman persisted. He was right.

[alanrobisch]

Until that day comes, it will never be defeated, definitely not by military means. Thinking otherwise is naive bordering on stupidity.

Posted by klifton2 at 01:50 PM : Oct 02, 2007
+ report abuse

Your suggestions to reduce the killing by the Al quaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan. Should we leave them to control Iraq and leave them to act freely in afghanistan. How do you deter their bombings such as 9/11 or the bombings in spain and england.

[alanrobisch]

Where did I attack anybody?? I said these dumbo reports of "progress" are better than science fiction for fantasy. Posted by clestes at 10:05 AM : Oct 02, 2007

I think because you called the people who prepared the reports liars as well as the people who quoted them

[klifton2-2009]

Al Qaeda is motivated by an ideology. It is like water that sieves through your fingers when you try to grab it and like water it is fluid and takes the form of the object that surrounds it. To even think that Al Qaeda has been crippled is foolish. They have time on their hands. They strike at will and only when they are ready not when America is ready. An ideology is pervasive and diffusive. It is here today, gone tomorrow, and rise again at an opportune time. That''s the reason why it is difficult if not impossible to effectively challenge them and win, not a propaganda win but a true win. The motivation behind Al Qaeda will die and along with it the aggression when the reasons for its ideology are no longer appropriate. Until that day comes, it will never be defeated, definitely not by military means. Thinking otherwise is naive bordering on stupidity.

[phil-in-fin]

knyghtwolf said,

"What is missing here?"

Someone in the White House with an ounce of integrity.

[ioweign]

They are running out of POPULATION in Iraq.

What is the population of Iraq now compared to a year ago !

Come on One_UNAmerican, they need census takers in Iraq !!

Posted by IOWEIGN at 08:06 AM : Oct 02, 2007


Here, you''''ll have to come up with something a little more believeable than "running out of population"...


Year Population
20
07 27,499,638
2006 26,783,383
2005 26,
074,906
2004 25,374,691
2003 24,683,31
3
2002 24,001,816
2001 23,331,985
200
0 22,675,617

Posted by s1ckd09 at 08:27 AM : Oct 02, 2007

Show your source - Here is mine

From Refugee International
http://www.refintl.org


The displacement of Iraqis from Iraq is now the fastest-growing refugee crisis in the world.

The UN estimates that over 4 million Iraqis have been displaced by violence in their country, the vast majority of which have fled since 2003. Over 2.2 million have vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq, 1.5 million are now living in Syria, and over 1 million refugees inhabit Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, and Turkey. Most Iraqis are determined to be resettled to Europe or North America, and few consider return to Iraq an option. With no legal work options in their current host countries, Iraqis are already exploring the use of false documents to migrate to Western nations.

[clestes-2009]

alanrobisch2,

Where did I attack anybody?? I said these dumbo reports of "progress" are better than science fiction for fantasy.

I guess you mean the NRO writers, but hey, they put themselves out there publishing this TRIPE!!

As I said before, the ONLY REAL PROGRESS that matters is political. Get that???? You understand????

Having "relative" peace in Anbar compared to the rest of Iraq, is TOTALLY MEANINGLESS!!!

In order for Iraq to have ANY CHANCE AT ALL OF PEACE, those warring factions MUST COME TO AGREEMENT.

Right now, the Sunnis are STILL BOYCOTTING the parliment. It cannot pass ONE SINGLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION.

What the fck difference does it make what is happening in Anbar??? If you think Anbar is going to be repeated somewhere else, you don''t know sh*t about the political/secular truth in Iraq. Anbar is 99.9% Sunni. ie, no civil war. In NO OTHER PLACE is this true, ie civil war. Of course it is much easier to get the Sunni''s to work with us when we offer them guns and training and they are not engaged in fighting Shiites.

When that is not true, there is ZERO HOPE of getting anyone to cooperate while they engage in a life and death battle with their secular enemy.

Oh, and by the way, as soon as the Sunni''s in Anbar get what they want from us, they will turn those guns WE GAVE THEM on us and on the Shiite govn in Baghdad.

So know the facts before debating with me!

[knyghtwolf]

I went to a family reunion recently that my uncles all attended. Each one is a combat vet in some war or another and I sat and listened to them talk about how the "War in Iraq" is not a war because you cannot have rules when fighting a war. You fight, kill, maim, use propaganda any way you can, bomb cities, populations, it doesn''t matter because WAR is not about being "CIVILIZED" its about DEATH & DESTRUCTION equals WINNING AT ANY AND ALL COSTS. So I wonder if the "War in Iraq" is not more of a police action....which is what Viet Nam was. How much brutality is allowed in killing people? How do they rate this and train soldiers to use this as a guide? Mr. bush (I will NEVER call it PRESIDENT) wants money, OUR money for a "WAR" based on LIES, DECIET, & PROFITEERING by its regime. Does anyone know where this money actually comes from or care? More than 70% of our population here in the United States wants this over and done with NOW. Mr bush wants to continue. How come it is not forced to use it''s company profits to fuel this money pit war? Why isn''t congress just saying NO? Does anyone in the country of CAPITOL HILL hear us? Why or Why not? If I work for someone and don nothing but cost that person and waste their money, I get fired, hands down. What hint does Mr. bush need that has not been clearly given to it already? What is missing here?

[grumpas]

I''ll believe it when I see it. These people have been telling us the insurgents were in ''their last throes'' for years. Anyone who believes Bush is a great leader needs their head examined. The guy couldn''t find his way out of a wet paper bag.

[phil-in-fin]

So, America has beaten the insurgents, spending billions upon billions upon billions ...

Actually, do we actually calculate this in spent dollars or blood spilled?

America paid a high price for its oil, because, after all, despite the "victory" stench that the article above reeks of, what really did the US gain in Iraq?

Other than wearing down an "army" of wack-jobs armed with only AKs and RPGs?

The real enemy got away ...