Another reason for the Baghdad turn-around

[bj229r]

link

Difficult to find stories such as this, esp. considering stuff like this exemplifies what is finally going right in Iraq. If the Dems wanna say that the surge had nothing to do with it, that's fine, but a least make stories such as this one KNOWN.

One morning in late May, a former Iraqi military intelligence officer working as an American double agent walked up to the al-Qaeda ruler of west Baghdad. The exchange of words, then bullets, that followed has transformed the most volatile neighbourhood of Baghdad into an unexpected haven of calm.

It may, according to US officers, be one of the most significant gunfights since the 2003 invasion, and its ripples across Baghdad are bringing local Sunni and Shia men together to fight terrorists and militia in other neighbourhoods.

The showdown went like this: “Hajji Sabah, isn’t it time you stopped already?” Abu Abed al-Obeidi, a diminutive 37-year-old with a drooping moustache, tired eyes and a ready smile, said. “You have destroyed Amariyah,” he added, referring to the neighbourhood.

“Who are you?” Sabah, the Islamist emir, sneered. “We’re al-Qaeda. I’ll kill you all and raze your homes.”
“You can try,” Mr al-Obeidi said.

The emir reached for his pistol. He was faster than Mr al-Obeidi, but his Glock 9mm jammed. As he turned to run, Mr al-Obeidi emptied his pistol into his back. His assault on al-Qaeda had begun.

Amariyah has experienced a startling rebirth since that western-style shootout. In May its streets were filled with corpses being picked over by stray dogs. American troops ventured in rarely. When they did, they used heavily armoured vehicles, several of which were blown apart by mines.

Now the shops and cafés are open, and schoolchildren and women stroll the streets. Mr al-Obeidi’s men patrol on foot with American troops and Iraqi soldiers.

After the Americans rolled into Baghdad in 2003, Mr al-Obeidi, a sniper and military intelligence major in Saddam Hussein’s army, briefly joined the Sunni resistance. Within a year he had grown disillusioned with al-Qaeda, which had taken over the movement with the aim of sparking a civil war between Iraq’s Shia majority and Sunni minority.

In an abrupt about-face, he offered his services as an intelligence agent to the Americans. “I have a basic principle to fight anybody who is hurting my fellow citizens,” he said, surrounded by his uniformed, well-armed gunmen in his large offices in Amariyah. “That’s why I co-operated in 2004 with the Americans and started to work against al-Qaeda.”

He used his skills as a secret agent and former insurgent to infiltrate extreme Islamist groups. He has also built up a network of close comrades from Saddam’s sacked officer corps and the insurgency. This spring, dismayed by the failure of the Iraqi Government and its US allies to stem the bloodshed by al-Qaeda, he decided to act directly himself.

The May gunbattle was touch and go. Of the 150 men Mr al-Obeidi had gathered to fight, all but 15 fled when the bullets and rocket-propelled grenades started to fly.

He had divided his men into two groups, each ruthlessly targeting al-Qaeda leaders. As Mr al-Obeidi shot dead Sabah, his deputy, Zayed, was gunning down his No 2, known as Omar the Slayer. Zayed died in the shootout.

Outgunned, Mr al-Obeidi and his remaining men retreated to a mosque, where his friend, Sheikh Walid alAzzawi, an imam, announced over the minaret loudspeakers what may be the first jihad against al-Qaeda.

Mr al-Obeidi had contacted the Americans before the attack and asked them not to intervene. Unusually, the US Army consented. After a night of fighting, the rebels were down to three men. Sheikh Walid called the Americans and begged for support. They arrived in force and cut down the Islamists.

The Americans had hit a goldmine in Mr al-Obeidi. With his intelligence skills and local gunmen, they suddenly found that they could identify an elusive enemy. The former insurgents knew exactly where to find the Islamists and their weapons. Within a month Mr al-Obeidi’s men had led the Americans on a series of raids that swept the Islamists from Amariyah.

The recent turning of Sunni tribes and insurgents against al-Qaeda in western Iraq and Baghdad has become known as the Sunni Awakening. Here, however, it is more of a national awakening — Mr al-Obeidi’s 600- man force includes disillusioned Shia soldiers as well as Sunni former officers who had worked secretly for the US.

The Shia population of Amariyah, driven out by Sunni extremists, has started to return. “I wish we had a dozen Abu Abeds,” Abdelrazaq Abu Muhammad, a 66-year-old Shia who was chased from Amariyah by alQaeda and returned a couple of weeks ago, said. “He is working round the clock, watching and guarding.”

Article is lengthy, but it gives you a unique insight into what goes on behind the scenes over there

[ded]

About time they started to fight.

[crockett]

I think it has more to do with the fact the Iraqi's are finally starting to take some responsibility for their own country. I think they have finally realized that they will be better off if they start rebuilding their country rather than trying to kill each other.

Surge or no surge if they still wanted to fight us, they would be.

[Yeager]

Surge or no surge if they still wanted to fight us, they would be.
====
They are still fighting us crockett.  The insurgency is lethal today.

  In my opinion the reduction of violence in Iraq is due to the fact that their strategy of open violence against everyone with a head on their shoulders has failed.  It would appear that "God is not willing" and they are finally getting the message.

  Plus, I believe their in-fighting and inability to achieve Bin Ladens call for solidarity, coupled with their losses in operations against the US military, have finally surpassed their sustainability mark.  They are losing this war against the Western democracies, any way you cut it, they are losing it and they know it.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Yeager
Surge or no surge if they still wanted to fight us, they would be.
====
They are still fighting us crockett.  The insurgency is lethal today.

  In my opinion the reduction of violence in Iraq is due to the fact that their strategy of open violence against everyone with a head on their shoulders has failed.  It would appear that "God is not willing" and they are finally getting the message.

  Plus, I believe their in-fighting and inability to achieve Bin Ladens call for solidarity, coupled with their losses in operations against the US military, have finally surpassed their sustainability mark.  They are losing this war against the Western democracies, any way you cut it, they are losing it and they know it.

'THEY', being AlQueda---What isn't touched on much is that they made Iraq their Alamo, and they have lost---Sunnis tand the Sh word that filter stops you from typing, have united in their utter hatred of these aholes

[Dago]

The fact that improvements are being seen in Iraq is fantastic, it means that less Americans will die there, and someday we can get out.

The improving situation is also the last thing democrats wanted, they would rather lose the war to help with the election.

[midnight Target]

So the enemy that wasn't there before we invaded is now being swept from the country by people fed up with the interlopers. I'm glad things are going well. But calling this a victory or even the start of one is like breaking a dish while cooking dinner and then declaring dinner ready when the shards are cleaned up.

[kamilyun]

Originally posted by bj229r
coffee now costs $5.75, takes 25 minutes and requires an agonizing choice between the cinnamon-gingerbread-persimmon latte with coxcomb sprinkles and the decaf venti pepperoni-Eurasian-miIfoil macchiato. Who would have foreseen that the nation that inflicted fast food and drive-thru restaurants on the planet would then take the fastest menu item of all and turn it into a kabuki-paced performance art? What mad genius!

Where is that quote from?  I completely empathize with the author.

Ever since I started drinking coffee (maybe 10 years now...I'm somewhat young), I've had my blood pressure  raised about 10 points from standing in line behind some yupster coffee drinking poser ordering a 2000 calorie coffee drink when all I want is a freaking "small to go".  People like this would be much better served by just going to Ben & Jerry's or Dairy Queen and getting some coffee powder sprinkled in their milkshake.

Anyway, sorry for the hijack... carry on

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Dago
[An] improving situation is also the last thing democrats [want], they would rather lose [a] war to help with [an] election.

Hmmmm ..... interesting theory, I reckon. Floats about as well as Republicans choosing to occupy Iraq because a short war doesn't guarantee a reelection for a Bush, I guess. But then, I'm just not that much into manic-depressive, paranoid, mission accomplished/stay the course, if it don't work out we got a back-up scapegoat plan ready for political hype at the expense of the nation/world type of reasoning .

[crockett]

Originally posted by Arlo
Hmmmm ..... interesting theory, I reckon. Floats about as well as Republicans choosing to occupy Iraq because a short war doesn't guarantee a reelection for a Bush, I guess. But then, I'm just not that much into manic-depressive, paranoid, mission accomplished/stay the course, if it don't work out we got a back-up scapegoat plan ready for political hype at the expense of the nation/world type of reasoning .

Yea if the war fails blame it on the Democrats, because they wanted to pull out and didn't support the war, or so the Repubs like to claim. If it goes well then it's of course it's because of the Republicans and staying the course to the end was whart made it happen. Damn those Dem's we told them..

How about, Bush and co has finally after what 5 years, put together a plan that has been suggested since the start of the war. Now that it's pretty much do or die for the Republicans with the Iraq problem. Finally Bush and co decided to do what the Generals had told him to do since day one. Hey big suprise maybe our Generals know what they are talking about.

Lucky for them it came about the same time that the Iraqi's decided it was better to work together than try to kill each other, at least for the most part.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by crockett
How about, Bush and co has finally after what 5 years, put together a plan that has been suggested since the start of the war. Now that it's pretty much do or die for the Republicans with the Iraq problem. Finally Bush and co decided to do what the Generals had told him to do since day one. Hey big suprise maybe our Generals know what they are talking about.

Lucky for them it came about the same time that the Iraqi's decided it was better to work together than try to kill each other, at least for the most part.

Much more believable than the Dago "theorem." I'm so glad the Bush administration was able to try everything else first to make sure it was a feasible plan. And hey, timing is everything. No better way to support the troops.

[Bodhi]

I think in Iraq it is more of a case of the "haves" and the "have nots" finally realising that even though there roles changed, they run the risk of all being "have nots" if they continue to support an insurgency that is being mainly sponsored by foreign extremists.  The Sunni's and Shi'tes seem to finally realise that they all stand to gain with the end of the insurgency and the resumption of rebuilding the country.

Add to that, Patreus is using a strategy that should have been implemented from the get go, but certain military leaders and political leaders emphasised a different strategy, and you are seeing the Iraqi's realise that we are actually there to help.

[C(Sea)Bass]

Some of the problems occuring in the war can be blamed on the democrats. Clintonin particular. His cutting of Military funding and programs left our military in a position where it was not able to be as effective as it should be.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by C(Sea)Bass
Some of the problems occuring in the war can be blamed on the democrats. Clinton in particular. His cutting of Military funding and programs left our military in a position where it was not able to be as effective as it should be.

A stretch Military.com didn't concur with:

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,92653,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

Author of the piece is Joe Galloway, the combat reporter and script co-writer (with Gen. Harold G. Moore) of "We Were Soldiers Once ... And Young" btw. A lot of dedicated Bushophiles discount him based on his low regard for the Bush administration's poorly planned and mismanaged invasion of Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld

Following September 11, 2001, Rumsfeld was in a meeting whose subject was the review of the Department of Defense's (Contingency) Plan in the event of a war with Iraq (U.S. Central Command OPLAN 1003-98). The plan (as it was then conceived) contemplated troop levels of up to 500,000, which Rumsfeld opined was far too many. Gordon and Trainor wrote:

As [General] Newbold outlined the plan … it was clear that Rumsfeld was growing increasingly irritated. For Rumsfeld, the plan required too many troops and supplies and took far too long to execute. It was, Rumsfeld declared, the "product of old thinking and the embodiment of everything that was wrong with the military."

* *
[T]he Plan . . . reflected long-standing military principles about the force levels that were needed to defeat Iraq, control a population of more than 24 million, and secure a nation the size of California with porous borders. Rumsfeld's numbers, in contrast, seemed to be pulled out of thin air. He had dismissed one of the military's long-standing plans, and suggested his own force level without any of the generals raising a cautionary flag.

Id.Gordon, Michael R. and Bernard E. Trainor, Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq], 2006. Book excerpt from the Denver Post


In Rumsfeld's final television interview as Secretary of Defense, he responded to a question by Brit Hume as to whether he pressed General Tommy Franks to lower his request for 400,000 troops for the Iraq War by stating:

“ Absolutely not. That's a mythology [sic]. This town is filled with this kind of nonsense. The people who decide the levels of forces on the ground are not the Secretary of Defense or the President. We hear recommendations but the recommendations are made by the combatant commanders and by members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and there hasn't been a minute in the last six years when we have not had the number of troops that the combatant commanders have requested.[32] ”

Rumsfeld told Hume that Franks ultimately decided against such a troop level. By 2007 it had become commonly accepted amongst Army leadership that the war in Iraq had been initiated with too few troops. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/us/13cnd-army.html?pagewanted=1&hp

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The fingers pointed at the Clinton military cut-backs are pretty weak by comparison.

I just love political partisanship damage-control reasoning. I'm thinking it's the "Calgon, take me away" approach to reality.

[Yeager]

Rumsfeld screwed the pooch with extreme prejudice.  Bush screwed the pooch by screwing the screwed pooch. Thankfully it appears that Bush has made the best of a truly bad situation with the appointment of Petraeus.  Lets hope things continue to stabilize in Iraq.