July 6, 2008
Iraqis lead final purge of Al-Qaeda
Marie Colvin in Mosul

American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.

After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda’s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant “last stand” in the northern city of Mosul.

A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.

Operation Lion’s Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans’ 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.

The group has been reduced to hit-and-run attacks, including one that killed two off-duty policemen yesterday, and sporadic bombings aimed at killing large numbers of officials and civilians.

Last Friday I joined the 2nd Iraqi Division as it supported local police in a house-to-house search for one such bomb after intelligence pointed to a large explosion today.

Even in the district of Zanjali, previously a hotbed of the insurgency, it was possible to accompany an Iraqi colonel on foot through streets of breeze-block houses studded with bullet holes. Hundreds of houses were searched without resistance but no bomb was found, only 60kg of explosives.

American and Iraqi leaders believe that while it would be premature to write off Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni group has lost control of its last urban base in Mosul and its remnants have been largely driven into the countryside to the south.

Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, who has also led a crackdown on the Shi’ite Mahdi Army in Basra and Baghdad in recent months, claimed yesterday that his government had “defeated” terrorism.

“They were intending to besiege Baghdad and control it,” Maliki said. “But thanks to the will of the tribes, security forces, army and all Iraqis, we defeated them.”

The number of foreign fighters coming over the border from Syria to bolster Al-Qaeda’s numbers is thought to have declined to as few as 20 a month, compared with 120 a month at its peak.

Brigadier General Abdullah Abdul, a senior Iraqi commander, said: “We’ve limited their movements with check-points. They are doing small attacks and trying big ones, but they’re mostly not succeeding.”

Major-General Mark Hertling, American commander in the north, said: “I think we’re at the irreversible point.”

Excellent Post SoloNav.. I think they have retreated in fear of what you informed us about, but, in general, as that is what is the core of what Putsch movement is all about.

Thank you. Here is another:
From The Sunday Times
July 6, 2008
Al-Qaeda is driven from Mosul bastion after bloody last stand
The murder toll is dropping, the insurgents are on the run. Our correspondent is on the front line as the Iraqi army takes control

Marie Colvin

The hunt began just after dawn. Iraqi armoured personnel carriers surrounded the turbulent Zanjali district in the northern city of Mosul, blocking off roads as police acting on an urgent tip-off swept in and searched from house to house.

They were looking for an Al-Qaeda bomb – a big one. Their intelligence suggested it could be detonated as early as today.

As the search intensified, I accompanied Colonel Tawfeeq Abdullah on a tense drive through Mosul to check on the operation’s progress.

A gunner loomed out of the open hatch in the roof of our Iraqi army Humvee, swivelling a heavy machinegun and scouring the bullet-pocked streets for enemy.

A soldier in the front passenger seat scanned the roads for improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the roadside bombs that have wreaked havoc on Iraqis and American forces.

Only three days earlier a roadside bomb had blown up an Iraqi Humvee, killing a policeman.

Everyone in our vehicle knew it was a prime target for Al-Qaeda in Iraq, formerly an awesome force that struck fear into the hearts of cities across the west and centre of Iraq but now reduced to a rump in the north in one of the most sweeping victories of America’s war on terror.

“We are going to a very bad neighbourhood,” said Abdullah, wiping the sweat from his face. It was 41C outside and far hotter inside the armoured vehicle.

Yet despite Zanjali’s reputation as a hotbed of the insurgency, we were able to climb down from the vehicle and walk safely along a road covered in......

The signs this weekend were positive. Major Erich Campbell, operations officer for the US advisers, said: “Earlier this year we could have gone down the street waving fistfuls of dollars in the air.

“We couldn’t buy anything. Iraqis told us, ‘If we sell to you, we will be killed’. Now we can buy things from shops.”


NOTE: I forgot the link for the first article. Both of these articles can be found here. Just scroll down to the bottom of the page for the link for the first article.

What is really sick about these two positive developments in Iraq is HOW SILENT THE US MEDIA IS ABOUT THEM.


Just so a primary media search for these story lines, and you will not find it, WHY IS THE OBAMA-NATION!!


That is all!!

Wait let me guess...Mission Accomplished right?

Whatever put-down it takes to float your liberal boat and make you feel good. <shrug>

It saves you from admitting the truth.

We are winning the War on Terrorism.

yeah - like the war on terror can be won.

For every ONE terrorist we take out there is like 10 more to take his place.

As long as the world has differing religions - and as long as the US keep meddling in other nations affairs and keeps bullying other nations - there will be terrorists.

We're winning the war on terror?


Yup...sure looks like it:



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/world/as...&ei=5087%0A













By Shaiq Hussain and Candace Rondeaux
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, July 7, 2008; 11:01 AM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 6 -- More than a dozen people were killed in Pakistan's capital Sunday when a suicide bomber detonated explosives near a crowd commemorating a deadly government-led raid on a radical mosque here last year, according to police.

The attack occurred early in the evening after more than 10,000 conservative Islamist protesters and mourners had gathered at the historic Red Mosque to mark the first anniversary of the raid. Witnesses said the crowd was just beginning to disperse when the explosion tore through a cluster of policemen near a post office a few hundred feet from the mosque.

Rana Akbar Hayat, an Islamabad police official, said police believe the bomber may have been hiding behind bushes near the post office when he set off the explosives.

There were conflicting accounts of the number of casualties. An adviser to Pakistan's Ministry of Interior, Rehman Malik, said eight people were killed, but officials at the scene said as many as 15 had died.

[Quoting police officials, wire services on Monday set the number dead at 18, following the overnight deaths of three policemen. Separately, a series of four minor explosions in Karachi injured at least 30 people.]
ad_icon

Several police officers and witnesses to the Islamabad bombing said many of those killed were policemen. At least 22 people injured in the blast were taken to two hospitals, police said.

Pakistani police and military forces have been targeted in several major suicide attacks in the past year, a development many here say is a violent backlash against the government of President Pervez Musharraf and his handling of the raid on the Red Mosque a year ago. The commando raid on the mosque and the Jamia Hafsa Islamic seminary for girls killed more than 100 people and ignited a wave of protests and bombings across Pakistan.

On Friday, al-Qaeda's media wing released a video tribute to the victims of the Red Mosque raid. The video, which includes previous messages from al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, lauds the mosque's former leaders for standing up to the Pakistani government and appeals to Muslims around the world to wage "jihad" against the United States. It was the first such video to be released in Urdu, one of Pakistan's two official languages; the other is English.

Trouble at the Red Mosque began as early as January 2007, when dozens of female seminary students barricaded themselves in a campus library to protest a government order to close down illegal mosques.

Tensions mounted last July 3, when at least 20 people were killed in a gun battle between police and mosque supporters who had holed up in the building. Maulana Abdul Aziz, the center's radical Islamist leader, was arrested the next day as he attempted to flee the mosque disguised in a burqa. Two days later, security forces stormed the mosque and killed more than 100 of its supporters, many of whom were armed.

Erected in the 1960s, the Red Mosque has been a center of Islamist fundamentalism since its inception and was known as much for its distinctive red walls as for its large number of students from Pakistan's religiously conservative North-West Frontier Province and tribal areas.

Aziz and his brother, Abdul Rashid Ghazi, were vocal opponents of Musharraf's military rule and regularly inveighed against the disappearance of thousands of Pakistanis believed to have been arrested by the country's powerful intelligence agencies. Ghazi was killed in the raid.

Their supporters continue to protest Musharraf's government. The mosque's official Web site displays photos of Ghazi's death mask and declares: "You can kill the body but you cannot kill the passion."

The death toll this year from explosive attacks in Islamabad and the nearby garrison city of Rawalpindi is the highest in recent memory, with at least 30 people killed since January.

Red Herring, Loose. You do know what a Red Herring is, don't you?

There were people dying on the last day of WWII, but we were still winning, and we DID WIN!

Got another point you'd like to be knocked down?

Fortunately for the rest of us, SoloNav, your beloved neocon administration will soon be out on it's collective arse and unable to propagate "regime change" or engage in further "nation building". Even John McCain, while a supporter of the Iraq War, is not a neocon and doesn't harbor grandiose schemes of "spreading democracy" at the end of a gun across the globe, although he'll keep a substantial number of troops in Iraq for longer than Barack Obama is likely to.

Question: Did "al qaeda in Iraq" even exist before the US invaded Iraq?
Answer: No.

Quite the "victory" there. I have always supported US troops, BTW, and always wish them success in their missions, and a safe return home. I just don't happen to believe they should ever have been deployed to invade and occupy Iraq to begin with.

Question: Did "al qaeda in Iraq" even exist before the US invaded Iraq?
Answer: No.

I agree.

That is what I was thinking after I read his rhetoric.

If you can read more about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, you'll know that he and Al Qaeda had major philosophical differences.

al-Zarqawi never wanted to face the US. He was more about fighting the scum in his backyard (i.e. Israelis and the Jordanians who worked with them). Even Osama pleaded with him to join the jihad against the USA, but he wanted no part of it ...that is...until the USA set up shop in his backyard during the Iraq invasion.

We won Vietnam too right...you know...since we killed more people.

I can see that neither of you read the articles. Shooting from the hip as it were. Most lefties do.

Care to address the issues brought UP in the articles instead of the red herring stuff? And, Mr. Left, you really need to get age on your butt in order to think clearly. Anyone who has a picture of Michael Moore as his avatar shows his own ignorance.

IMHO, John McCain is the lesser of two evils. I'd rather have him than your darling leftist-media loving, socialist, marixist-leaning Obamalama, who got the nomination because your liberal-loving brainwashed media threw Hillary under the bus. With M.M's blessing, I'm sure.

What loyalty. What a thing to be proud of. Blood-letting and cannabalism of one's own, not withstanding.

So a huge jump in violence and deaths in Afghanistan is called "winning the war on terror" these days...?

Kinda seems like we're just pushing the violence around to different places...

Loosely canonize;

yeah - like the war on terror can be won. In left wing nut logic, “as opposed to it can be lost,” I suppose?

For every ONE terrorist we take out there is like 10 more to take his place. What evidence do you have of this false myth of lefty fear monger and talking points, there, Herr. Lose and Canonize.

Truth is indoctrinated, the false photos of “our war on Terror” you pinned in your fear mongering, is NOT our war on Terror, unless you believe that radical Islamist Killing Innocent Muslim is our war on terror. Is that what you believe, when Terrorist Muslims in Pakistan, murder Pakistani Muslims, it is America war on terror or Pakistani’s war on Terror, which is whine and chime?

Hmm, Well, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead, so are 95% of those who went to Iraq with him. Saudi Arabia alone estimates it may have had over 8,000 of its citizens killed in Iraq since 2003. Grand total: 19,731 to 23,560 insurgent dead in Iraq.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...nsurgents_N.htm

My god, Looser Canonized, this is you lefties "good war," do you not know anything about Afghanistan at all. They fight in the spring and Summer, because they cannot fight in the winter and fall. The fighting season is from Late May to early August.

The uptick in Afghanistan combat is due the ISAF summer offensive kicking in, last month alone the Taliban suffered confirmed 568 KIA and an estimated 3,400 WIA, according to the ISAF. On June 24 and 26 alone, over 225 were killed in operations in the south and east.

Since, May 2006, the ISAF forces have accounted for some 16,456 TALIBAN KIA, 4, 650 captured, and an estimated 23,400 WIA.

Don’t let your own lefty media hype you out, this is the Liberal’s “good war," or haven’t you heard that from your Putsch leadership who have for years now left a trail of comments to that effect.

http://www.nato.int/isaf/index.html



Question: Did "al qaeda in Iraq" even exist before the US invaded Iraq?
Answer: No.

Quite the "victory" there. I have always supported US troops, BTW, and always wish them success in their missions, and a safe return home. I just don't happen to believe they should ever have been deployed to invade and occupy Iraq to begin with.

Excellent logic, from a darkened alley view point Mr. Right.

Day dreaming about how you may have or may not have driven better yesterday, always looking in the rear view mirror, makes you drive that much better today and tomorrow under current conditions hey? You keep driving, all focused up in the rear view mirror, now that is ticket for success for a better tomorrow?

Al Queda was not in Iraq in any numbers so what! That was 5.5 years ago. Talk about stuck in reverse, on a dead end road, listening to 5 .5 years of your own lost in indoctrination echoes.

I suppose some like to lead from the rear, looking backwards. I know the current Putsch Doomocrats are experts at rear-ward thinking problem solving obsessing in negativity and just saying no.

Problem is now, they must lead looking forward, they seem to have a real problem from that forward looking view. You must share that affliction.

If one takes the view, that taking the battle to them, brought them to Iraq, so they could be defeated, as much as anything, by their own vile, bloodthirsty evil ways, as they have been for all intensive purposes. Then one is looking forward making even what perhaps, arguably, was an unworthy popular effort at first, worthy of the the strategic effort and sacrifices made by those troops you say you support in words of hindsight after being so wrong so often here about the troops and the war outcome. Take a look at your history of posts. It is not exactly consistent with what you have said today.

All that matters, is Al Qaeda brought the fight to us, and then they came to Iraq to finish the battle. In doing that, they gambled it all as they have lost and or are on the verge of being made ineffective and all but inconsequential.

Does not matter how they were destroyed, because they had far more to lose in this battle than we did. It was their persona enshrined on the Muslim streets as their champions, that most of all needed to be defeated. What has happened to them in Afghanistan, and Iraq has blackened their myth on the Muslims streets as the true and honest Champions of Islam, and as such, the invincible ones, in the mystical eyes of hope on the Muslims streets.

The tide has gone out for Al queda, like Saddam, who once wore the champions crown of the Muslims streets. Now, two Champions have be laid to rest effectively. They have lost their street credibility by being the cold-blooded killers of their fellow Muslims we knew they were going to be, when they came to Iraq.

You guys have never accepted the strategic concept involved in Iraq, that it was always about what was strategic and viable, not what was neccessary and or popular. Tactically, by fighting them there, we do not fight them elsewhere. But more importantly, you have never grasped the idea of how important their image was to their ability, to not only continue, but to continue inciting more violence and terror. Al Queada and the Taliban by killing far more Muslims than anyone else hasworked to destroy itself, with our assistance, in very heart of Islam, where their only, and very strength, lies. Except from the weak knees of their lefty cheerleaders occasionally.

The mothers of dead Muslims all over the world have defeated Al Queda more than the US. Because now they know Al Queda is not their champion, but instead the main source of their deadly pain. They have somehow come to envision who kills far more of them than anyone else, and who has brought this deadly Military machine, America, to their doors. The Streets of the left coasts of American, the Muslims Streets, and within Al queda, and the Taliban, base miscalculated and lost, to even a vastly divided America. The last thing they want is to face a united America and now, they know it.



To the Indoctrinated middle school child, I do not waste time with Children. So perhaps you can get your indoctrinated Middle School teacher, who was likely not born even close to the Vietnam era “to help you PROVE WE LOST, strategically, in what we started out to achieve, and especially in the post Vietnam war era, proving, who in the end, won and lost Vietnam. Child.


That is all!!

Are you saying the destruction of the World Trade Centers has what to do with Iraq? Do I sense that you're trying to link 9/11 and Iraq?

LOL!

Communication is a terrible thing to waste, so why do you waste it saying nothing. Are you even old enough or wise enough to vote?

Perhaps because you cannot read it somehwere else, so you can post it, as an answer to what you cannot concieve for yourself I surmise.

The words speak clearly and loudly for themselves, what you do with them, is your burden to bare.

Try reading it again, le connonizer.





Like you le cannonizer, Al queda have gambled all, and lost each time. But even a dead dog has its day, but today, was not theirs, nor yours.
Try again... maybe the alter-net can give you a clue as to what it all means...

That is all!!

You do realize it's been 7 years, right??

I agree completely, MrRight. Solonav's opening comment, "Cry your eyes out, liberal," insinuating that American liberals want an al Qaeda victory in Iraq, only served to discredit her position. Her intent is apparently not to express optimism over the reported decline of al Qaeda's influence in Iraq, but to falsely attack those opposed the war as being on the side of terrorists. It's a clumbsy attempt at propaganda, and IMO not even worth responding to. Arguing with her does no more good than pissing on a forest fire.

A lot of people see the light that America makes it own enemies by shoving democracy down the throats of other nations and by using our military might to bully the political world for our own self interests no matter what the consequence is to other countries. The good ol' US of A is one of the most corrupt governments on the planet. Just because I live here doesn't mean I have to agree with all the crap our government does.

Clumbsy?

Posting this printed story is an effort at propaganda? Is it me making up this propaganda? Or, the story that I posted? Your reasoning is confusing here. If it's the story, which sites [that offer a positive outlook of the WOT] would you not consider propoganda? Laughable comeback. You are also into mindreading now, are you? (What you do with your piss, guy, is your own business, BTW. Whatever you feel the need to do. ) Care to offer an intelligent rebuttal to the message rather than killing the messenger? Sign of a weak argument.

And, a lot of people don't see America this way. Your comment means nothing. Of course, we aren't perfect here, but it's still the best place on earth to live. Perhaps then you know of a better place to live.........where a perfect utopia exists? Where would that be? Where would the positives outweigh the negatives? Tell.

How is the game-playing coming along? That is if you can take time out from pissing on forest fires to put them out.

Really?

Baby Alex, when you grow up tell Mom, you will NOT volunteer to defend your country, so she will stop worrying, you would actually think of doing something for the greater good over narcissism, and its self interests, embedded in Mom’s Moveon.

Moveon Mom, it is a Volunteer military, darling! Save you money, if the moveon Putsch will let you, to send Baby Alex to Indoctrinate U, so he can learn to think-speak, in Moveon speak, just like dear old ill-informed mom.

Democrats and Afghanistan; the good war..

When they won control of Congress in November, Democrats pressed their case to withdraw troops from Iraq and refocus on Afghanistan.

With a few exceptions, congressional Democrats no longer show any hesitation about withdrawing the military from Iraq. But, they are more circumspect about Afghanistan, saying that the Bush administration let the situation worsen by shifting attention onto a protracted conflict in Iraq.



Next time, the Democrats should try a different strategy. Instead of calling for troop cuts in Iraq, they should call for transferring forces and resources from Iraq to Afghanistan.

American forces are no longer the crucial factor in stabilizing Iraq. That will come only through politics, when Shiites and Sunnis commit to sharing power. But in Afghanistan, our efforts could still be decisive. Afghans are less hostile than Iraqis to American forces. And the British, who are leading the NATO mission set to take over next month, desperately need more combat power and air support in order to finally defeat the Taliban.

By forcing a debate on transferring American forces back to Afghanistan, the Democrats can avoid the trap of allowing Republicans to claim they are weak.

They can argue that their proposal is not a withdrawal from the front, but rather a deployment to an equally important front where American leadership can make the difference in securing a long-term victory.

Democrats can justifiably argue their goal is to reverse the Bush administration's premature diversion to Iraq. If nothing else, such a debate would focus attention on the Bush administration's failure to finish the job in Afghanistan.

Americans know that Iraq has become a drain on our resources and reputation, but they are wary of giving up. On the other hand, since the Sept. 11 attacks were planned in Afghanistan, public support for finally finishing off the Taliban and their allies in Al Qaeda can be sustained for a long time to come.
By marrying good policy with good politics in this way, the Democrats can help win the war on terrorism and help themselves at the same time.



Afghanistan ignored

By Barney Frank | August 30, 2006

A WAR is missing. Sadly, it is not missing from the physical location in which it is taking place, and people continue to die as it is waged. But it has largely disappeared from our national debate, and that debate has been sorely distorted as a consequence.

The war in question is in Afghanistan, and it isn't missing because it's no longer of consequence -- in fact, conditions there appear to be deteriorating -- but because of a conscious, unfortunately successful effort by the Bush administration and its conservative allies to ignore it. That's because acknowledging the war there would invalidate their charge that their po

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...nistan_ignored/

Don't 'pull an Iraq' in Afghanistan

Massive state-building efforts are not a good use of tax dollars.

The liberal Center for American Progress has long advocated shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, a stance now echoed by several left-leaning think tanks. Last month, Hillary Rodham Clinton called for expanded American and NATO troop contributions, plus increased funds for reconstruction. Barack Obama recently said something similar with greater specificity.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0403/p09s01-coop.html

Today's Dems are, in other words, proving unequal to the task of reclaiming the party's mostly honorable heritage on national security. This view is sadly out of touch, today more than ever. To little notice, Obama's tough, clearly stated position on Bush's war—that it was disastrously misdirected toward Iraq when Afghanistan was always the real front—is becoming conventional wisdom.

MS. MONTAGNE: You also visited Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, why are more troops the answer?

MS. MONTAGNE: Well, why would one consider more troops going into Afghanistan and not Iraq?

SPEAKER PELOSI: They’re two different situations. The war on terror is in Afghanistan. The fact that we weakened our commitment to Afghanistan in order to concentrate in Iraq has taken a toll. The vacuum that was created enabled the Taliban to make a comeback.

What was interesting to me in Afghanistan was that the NATO commander there told us that this could be lost. Now, I did not realize that the situation was that dire in Afghanistan. And we need more troops, but we also need more NATO troops, and we made that clear to the NATO commander, that the countries of NATO had to have more troops there with more discretion, without caveats – “We can’t do this, we can’t do that.” And also the countries of Europe have to make a stronger economic commitment to the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

December 6, 2007 3:50 PM

by Matthew Hay Brown

Congressional Democrats might consider new war funding for Afghanistan before leaving Washington next week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said today -- but the majority remains opposed to appropriating any more money for the war in Iraq this year

Pelosi On Larry King: Afghanistan is Central Front of GWOT
(Global War On Terrorism)..and the Democrats inability to stop the war overshadowed their many successes in the House


JUST AFGHANISTAN?
LOOK WHERE AL QAEDA & CO. HAVE STRUCK SINCE 9/11

THE EDITORS

November 5, 2006 -- THE woman who will become Speaker of the House, should Democrats pick up sufficient seats on Tuesday, believes passionately that the War on Terror is only the war in Afghanistan.

Reality check: The map above shows a selection of the major, memorable terrorist attacks world-wide since Jan. 1, 2002, as well as indicating nations which the Rand Corp. Terrorism Database lists as hosting a significant al Qaeda presence.

(Just a selection, of course - a map of attacks in Israel or Iraq could fill the whole page.)

Only Afghanistan? It is staggering to think that anyone of such naivete could soon leading one house of Congress.
Nancy Pelosi's defenders will point out that she answering the question, "Do you not think that the war in Iraq now, today, is the War on Terror?"
But her full answer was, "No. The War on Terror is the war in Afghanistan."

July 8 2008.

Way past time for U.S. to recommit to Afghanistan

Democratic, Senator Bob Casey a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania.

In the days and weeks following the horrific events of 9/11, the American people recognized that we could never again allow al-Qaeda or a related group to gain the sanctuary needed to plan and train for another terrorist attack on American soil or against our allies. It is for that reason the United States moved to quickly topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan after it refused to turn over Osama bin Laden and other senior al-Qaeda leaders who had taken refuge there.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/200...fghanistan.html

That is all!!

Don't all you people ever wonder what happened to NATO in Afghanistan?

Where are the Europeans in this little fracas?

Afghanistan, The DOOMocrats GOOD WAR!

Afghanistan Progress Report

Road Network:

Taliban- 21,000km; many damaged

Now-34,782km; many upgraded/repaired

Schools:

Taliban-1000

NOW-9000

In Attendance:

Taliban-1 million boys/no girls

NOW-6 million total (2.2 million are girls)

Teachers:

Taliban-20,000

NOW-160,000: 80% growth

Availability:

Taliban-Few had access to schools

NOW-96% of boys; 68% of girls

Access to Health Care:

Taliban-8% of people had access

NOW-78% of people have access

Infant Mortality Rate:

Taliban-Highest in the world

NOW-25% reduction; 89,000 lives saved

Banking System:

Taliban-No systems:

NOW-3 currencies 1 Globally recognized currency

Licit Exports:

Taliban-$80,000,000

NOW-$471,000,000; 588% increase

District Centers:

Taliban-No Centers for Government

NOW-35 District-Cs; 53 more under constr.

Telecommunications:

Taliban-1 mobile phone company

NOW-3 companies; 3.5 million subscribers

Gov Communications Network:

Taliban-Non-existent

NOW-64% districts linked to Central Gov

TV & Radio Stations:

Taliban-Virtually non-existent

NOW-6 TV & 104 Radio Stations

Electricity Production:

Taliban-430 Mega-Watts

NOW-754 Mega-Watts

Irrigation Canals:

Taliban-60%-70% Destroyed

NOW- 440km rebuilt; servicing 240,000 ac.

http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/mirror/2008/...r_48_200805.pdf




Troops –

US 19,000 – KIA-543

UK- 7,750 – KIA -110

Germany -3,490 –KIA -25

Canada- 2,500 – KIA -87

Italy- 2,360 – KIA -12

Netherlands -1,730 – KIA -16

France – 1,430 – KIA -12

Australia – 1,100 – KIA -6

Poland -1,020 – KIA - 5

Denmark – 780 – KIA -14

Spain -770 – KIA – 23

Turkey – 750 – KIA -0

24 other countries < 500 – KIA -23

07/09/08 Guardian: 400 militants killed in US Helmand mission, says colonel
US marines in southern Afghanistan have killed 400 Islamist militants in the past two months, one of their commanders said today. Colonel Peter Petronzio, the commander of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, said the figure came...

ISAF operations are divided among five regional commands:

Regional Command Capital (approx strength 5,800)

•HQ ISAF in Kabul (Composite)

•HQ RC-C in Kabul (TUR)

Regional Command South (approx strength 18,000)

•HQ RC-S in Kandahar (CAN)

Regional Command West (approx strength 2,600)

•HQ RC-W in Herat (ITA)

Regional Command North (approx strength 4,700)

•HQ RC-N in Mazar-e Sharif (DEU)

Regional Command East (approx strength 16,000)

•HQ RC-E in Bagram (USA)

http://www.natochannel.tv/Default.aspx?bhcp=1

That is all!!

chukd, my understanding is that NATO pretty well meandered and became ineffective when it's arch enemy, Russia, dissolved.
They are trying to raise their collective head again, but their influence/progress is slow:

More German Troops to Afghanistan

By JUDY DEMPSEY and ALAN COWELL
Published: June 25, 2008
BERLIN — Under pressure from NATO, Germany announced Tuesday that it would increase the number of soldiers available for duty in Afghanistan by almost one-third to 4,500, but that it would maintain its policy of keeping the bulk of them away from the relatively violent southern provinces....
Link here

Then explain your point in beginning your post with "Cry your eyes out, liberals." Your insinuation is clear.




Sweden.

The Bahamas and Micronesia come quickly to mind...

The Maldives.

Winning the war on terror...yep...sure looks like it....




By Laura King, Los Angeles Times staff writer
4:30 AM PDT, July 9, 2008
ISTANBUL, Turkey -- Gunmen today attacked the U.S. consulate here, sparking a gun battle that left three Turkish police officers and the three assailants dead, authorities said.

It was the most serious attack in several years on a foreign diplomatic mission in Turkey.

No consulate personnel were reported killed or injured in the shooting, which occurred at about 11 a.m. in the Istanbul suburb of Istinye. The consulate moved out of downtown Istanbul after Al Qaeda militants in 2003 attacked targets including the British consulate.

Police sealed off the area around the heavily fortified consulate complex, which is built on a hillside overlooking the Bosphorus. The steep street approaching the consulate gates is lined with small apartment buildings and shops.

Officials at the scene, including Istanbul's governor, said a white car was seen dropping off the three gunmen, all appearing to be in their 20s, close to the entrance to the consulate's visa section. Turkish traffic police who happened to be nearby spotted them, and an exchange of gunfire broke out.

In addition to the three officers killed, two other people were wounded, authorities said. The driver of the car that dropped the men off escaped, and an intensive manhunt was launched.

One man who lives in a nearby apartment building said the gun battle lasted between three and five minutes. Patrons in a small café just across the street ducked for cover.

In the wake of the attack, a phalanx of police in body armor, cradling automatic weapons, prevented onlookers and a crowd of Turkish and foreign journalists from approaching. Behind the yellow-crime scene tape, two ambulances were parked, containing the dead assailants' bodies.

Detectives moved from one building to another questioning witnesses. White-clad forensics investigators could be seen combing the area.

The governor, Muammer Guler, identified the injured as a police officer and a tow-truck driver.

Afghanistan: 400 militants killed in US Helmand mission, says colonel

US marines in southern Afghanistan have killed 400 Islamist militants in the past three months, one of their commanders said today.

Colonel Peter Petronzio, the commander of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, said the figure came from the governor of Helmand province, where his troops have been deployed since late April.

Around 2,200 US marines were posted to the town of Garmser, in Helmand province, in an effort to rid the area of pro-Taliban fighters. After months of fighting with insurgents around the town, Petronzio said, the area was more stable but not yet secure.

"The Taliban proved they wanted to fight for Garmser and we took the fight to them," he said.

Petronzio said Nato and Afghan forces remained committed to driving insurgents out of the region, which is an important gateway for fighters smuggling weapons from Pakistan. "If the Taliban are waiting for us to leave, they will have a very long wait," he said.

More than 4,100 people – mostly Islamist militants – have been killed in insurgency-related violence in Afghanistan this year alone. More than 8,000 Islamist militants died in attacks last year, according to the United Nations, the most since the 2001 US-led invasion.

Last week, the Pentagon announced it had extended the tour of the 2,200 marines in Afghanistan, after insisting for months that the unit would go home on time. The unit will stay an extra 30 days and will go home in early November rather than October, US officials said.

A count by the Associated Press found that at least 45 international troops, including 27 from the US and 13 from Britain, died in Afghanistan last month, compared with 31 international soldiers killed in Iraq, of whom 29 were from the US. It was the second consecutive month that more troops were killed in Afghanistan than in Iraq, where international forces suffered their deadliest month since the 2001 US-led invasion.

A report by the Pentagon in June forecast that the Taliban would maintain or increase the rate of attacks along the Pakistan border where US troops operate. Attacks are already up by 40% this year from 2007.

Fighting between militants and international troops is intensifying in the southern half of Afghanistan. AP's tally places the total death toll at 2,100 in the past six months

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/09/

The uptick in Afghanistan combat is due the ISAF summer offensive kicking in, last month alone the Taliban suffered confirmed 568 KIA and an estimated 3,400 WIA, according to the ISAF. On June 24 and 26 over 225 were killed in operations in the south and east in those two days alone.

Since, May 2006, the ISAF forces have accounted for some 16,456 TALIBAN KIA, 4, 650 captured, and an estimated 23,400 WIA. Don’t let your own lefty media hype you out, this is the Liberal’s “good war, “or haven’t you heard from you Putsch leadership who have years of comments to that effect

http://www.nato.int/isaf/index.html

How to measure al Qaeda's defeat
By Walid Phares

In an article published in the Washington Post on Friday May 30, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden is quoted as portraying al Qaeda movement as

"essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."

The article said Hayden asserts that

"Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents." More importantly, the article quotes the chief intelligence declaring a "near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq; near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia; significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally -- and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically' -- as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam."

These powerful declarations prompted a series of reactions and debates both in political and counter terrorism circles, causing loud media discussions. The main but simple question of interest to the public, and subsequently to voters in the US and other Democracies, is this:

Is al Qaeda being defeated?

However more complex questions arise from the CIA Director's statements, which if answered accurately would leave the main assertion still unclear. Following are few of these strategic questions:

If al Qaeda is being defeated, who is defeating it? Is it the US and the West, the Arab and Muslim moderates, or other Jihadists? If Usama Bin Laden is being challenged by his own members, ex members or non al Qaeda Jihadists, how can that be determined as a defeat and to whom?

Would a coup inside al Qaeda be of interest to Washington if the new team is as Jihadist but not as "Bin Ladenist"? Or is it the US-centered interests that are at play? Meaning the inability of al Qaeda under Bin laden and Zawahiri to strike at America or target American troops and presence overseas, including in Iraq?

Is it Bin laden's discredit, al-Qaeda's weakening or Jihadism's defeat that is the broadest strategic goal to attain? Even farther in questioning, is it al Qaeda'Takfiri method or it the global Jihadist ideology that is receding? The matter is not that simple, as one can conclude. So how can we measure an al Qaeda defeat in the middle of a War still raging around the world? I propose the following parameters.

Is al Qaeda being defeated strategically worldwide as stated by the CIA Director?


First the confrontation is still ongoing. Hence we need to situate the conflict first. Are we comparable with WWII before Normandy or after? In this War on Terror terms, what are our intentions? Is the US-led campaign designed to go after the membership of al Qaeda, go after its ideology or to support democracy movements to finish the job? Everything depends on the answers.


Geopolitically and at this stage, al Qaeda has been contained in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and in Somalia. But al Qaeda has potential, through allies, to thrust through Pakistan and the entire sub Sahara plateau. It was contained in Saudi Arabia but its cells (and off shoots) are omnipresent in Western Europe, Latin America, Indonesia, the Balkans, Russia and India, let alone North America. Objectively one would admit that the organization is being pushed back in some spots but has yet to be proven to still be gaining ground in other locations. Although geopolitical results are crucial, a final blow against al Qaeda has to be mainly ideological.


How can we measure al Qaeda's defeat in Iraq, if that is true?


There are three ways to measure defeat or victory: Operational, Control and Recruitment. First, is al Qaeda waging the same number of operations? Second, does it control enclaves? Third, is it recruiting high numbers? By these parameters al Qaeda was certainly "contained" in Iraq, particularly in the Sunni triangle. This was a combined result of the US surge operations and of a rise by local tribes, backed by American military and funding. But this scoring against al Qaeda would diminish and probably collapse if the US quit Iraq abruptly, or without leaving a strong ally behind. So, technically it is a containment of al Qaeda in Iraq.


How about Saudi Arabia?


The Saudis have contained many of al Qaeda's active cells in the Kingdom. But authorities haven't shrunk the ideological pool from which al Qaeda recruits, i.e. the hard core Wahabi circles. The regime has been using its own clerics to isolate the more radical indoctrination chains. It has been successful in creating a new status quo, but just that. If Iraq crumbles, that is if an abrupt withdrawal takes place in the absence of a strong and democratic Iraqi Government, al Qaeda will surge in the Triangle and thus will begin to impact Saudi Arabia. Therefore the current containment in the Kingdom is hinging on the success of the US led efforts in Iraq, not on inherent ideological efforts in Saudi Arabia.


How about Pakistan-Afghanistan?


In Afghanistan, both the Taliban and al Qaeda weren't able to create exclusive zones of control despite their frequent Terror attacks for the last seven years.

But there again, the support to operations inside Afghanistan is coming mainly from the Jihadi enclaves inside Pakistan: Which conditions the victory over al Qaeda by the Kabul Government to the defeat of the combat Jihadi forces within the borders of Pakistan by Islamabad's authorities. Do we expect President Musharref and his cabinet to wage a massive campaign soon into Waziristan and beyond? Unlikely for the moment believe most experts. Hence, the containment of al Qaeda in Afghanistan is hinging on the Pakistan's politics. While it is true that the Bin Laden initial leadership network has been depleted, the movement continues to survive, fed by an unchallenged ideology, so far. Again, it is containment of operations and growth potential in what may be more a criminal endeavor than what was potentially a vast idelogical military enedeavor.

The war of ideas: Is al Qaeda losing it?

Geopolitically, al Qaeda is contained on the main battlefields in Iraq, Afghanistan and somewhat in Somalia. It is suppressed in Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. But it is roaming freely, admittedly in smaller and smaller effective groups in many other spots. It is not winning in face of the Western world's premier military machine, but it is still breathing but not now with once vast lungs of operational ability it once had potential for.

As simple as that: if the United States decides to end the War on Terror. or as its bureaucracy has been inclined to do lately, end the War of Ideas against Jihadism, the hydra will rise again and change the course of the conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Arabia and the African Sahara. All depends on how Americans and other democracies are going to wage their campaign against al Qaeda's ideology. If they choose to ignore it and embark on a fantasy trip to nowhere, as the "Lexicon" business shows, al Qaeda -- or its successors -- can win eventually.

But if the next Administration would focus on a real ideological defeat of Bin Laden's movement, then, the advances made on the battlefields will hold firmly and expand, if not the entire set of battles will eventualy need to be revisted agaain for the thrid time in 20 + years.

Lately, some in the counter terrorism community are postulating that Bin Laden is being criticized by his own supporters, or more precisely by ideologues and Jihadists who backed him in the past, then turned against him lately. These analysts offer striking writings by Salafist cadres against the leadership of Bin laden and his associates as evidence of an al Qaeda going into decline. Would these facts mean that the once unchallenged Bin Laden is now losing altitude? Technically yes, Usama is being criticized by Jihadists. But does that mean that we in liberal democracies are winning that war of ideas? We stand on the precipitous. What we do in the next year or two will decide if it all continues or slowly grinds to an end as most insurgencies have done before.

A thorough review of the substance of what the Jihadi critics are complaining about (a subject I intend to address in a future article), is not exactly what the free world would be looking forward to. But in short, al Qaeda is now contained in the very battlefield it chose to fend off the Infidels in: Iraq.

But this is just one moment in space and time, during which we will have to fight hard to keep the situation as is. Our favorable situation is a product of the US military surge and of a massive investment in dollars. It is up to this Congress, and probably to the next President to maintain that moment, weaken it or expand it.

Al Qaeda and the Iranian regime know exactly the essence of this strategic equation. I am not sure, though, that a majority of Americans are aware of the gravity of the situation. In other words, the public is told in contradiction we have either lost already or that we have won this round against al Qaeda but it should be informed of what it would take to reach final victory in this global conflict and importantly how what we do or do not do in the next tgwo years will change the course to better or worst.

*******
Dr Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.

June 4, 2008 03:48 PM Print


TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://counterterrorismblog.org/mt/pings.cgi/5257

Some people have opinions of hope, for defeat, some people have facts, showing great progress towards Victory, you decide which offers what here.

That is all!!

Thanks for the article, ustrader, I have a question
do you see any increase in US troop deployments
to Afghanistan after the winter of 08? Are the Taliban
going to launch an offensive in the Spring? I reckon
that is Al-Qaeda's last frontier, and the Taliban are
blood brothers with them, so are they seriously going
to occupy as much of the country without bothering
about Kabul, the capital?

Welcome if you are new. Please understand anyone can re-register who has another name they use here.

Thanks for the question. More deployment, Yes, though I am not definitive on it, I suspect as Iraq troop levels come down, as I suspect they will, before even this year is out, and more so likely, in increments, as time goes on from this year forward.

The Taliban will always launch something in the fighting season, even against their own allies. They have Paki protective impunity for attack and retreat, the perfect insurgent tool to prolong an eventual outcome, that only way we will be lost, is if we lose our will to go the distance.

I think if you look for the facts, you will see the Taliban, despite the hype of those who oppose, and their allies, within the media, do not, in truth, occupy much of the country with impunity any more. In fact, they control mostly rural, and or, only small villages or outward mountainous enclaves in Afghanistan. And even there, we, the Afghans, and ISAF are reaching out more and more into their once free and safe zones to touch them in big ways.

Their fighting forces vastly live in Paki and only have disguised civilians as covert operatives among their friends who are mostly in the Far East, next to Iran and or vastly larger in the south, next to the protective Paki enclaves where they shelter.

Tactically their ability to maneuver in Afghanistan has become most perilous for them if they gather to long in one place, and or with too large a force, so they prefer to slip over in small groups, deploy for ambushes mostly, and then, shoot and scoot.

Their greatest weapon, like in Iraq, is killing and hoping, the usual Public Opinion and Putsch media hype, will surrender to the logical rational that death and war are horrible, and must be unilaterally stopped.

But they have no intention of stopping, like North Vietnam, who played the get out game, with the American public, only to bid their time and go on to even a more deadly war, on their own, and their neighbors, for the next 15 or so years after America had left.

I have had 4 relatives serve there now multiple times in the last 7.5 years and each time they come back, they speak in greater confidence that the Taliban and Al Qaeda, have become more and more ineffective, though not painlessly so.

I have had 7 others who have been to Iraq several times as well. The last one to return, said, his last 4 months, in An bar were like being in Kuwait, quite, dull and happily boring.

The true threat of a far larger ideological movement taking shape, as was desired by the ideological leadership, has been greatly diminished, but the insurgency will continue as long as they have sanctuary in Waziristan to resupply, recruit, and lick their wounds.

I think any person looking for the reality and facts will find this is somewhat close to what is occurring in Afghanistan. Think of Afghanistan as Texas, with Colorado and Utah landscapes and topography, but with vastly less people about over lands where the few people still living in the hinterlands live like they did when the British first came to India, what 500 years ago.

Until this modern age of electronic surveillance, this area was the perfect ground to fighting an insurgency, but now the electronic eyes of day and night that lauder about, have greatly weakened the terrain advantage these mountain fighters once had against all comers.

That is all!!

Funny how SoloNav avoided my responses to her questions.

Yay!! this leftie wins again!

---CHILDREN

SoloNav has had company. Sorry you don't have a life other than this board.

So, why don't you move there? That was the bait I dangled which you took.

BTW, I've been to the Bahamas. Depends upon which of the two kinds you choose. Personally, I think you'd be a perfect match for the American side. Don't ask me why. You'd have to have personal experience, child.

However, back to the original post: WE ARE WINNNG THE WAR ON TERROR despite yours and MR's weak comebacks and sour grapes arguments which prove nothing. Nothing.

Concerning questions being dodged, you didn't answer mine about your game-playing. ??