Blue Crab Boulevard

Al Qaeda In Iraq Admits Heavy Casualties

This is extremely interesting. The leader of al Qaeda in Iraq has issued an audio tape that admits that more than 4,000 foreign fighters have died in Iraq. (Frankly, if they are admitting 4,000, the actual total is much higher). Then he calls for additional volunteers, especially explosive experts and "nuclear scientists".

"The blood has been spilled in Iraq of more than 4,000 foreigners who came to fight," said the man, who identified himself as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir — also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri — the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. The voice could not be independently identified.

The Arabic word he used indicated he was speaking about foreigners who joined the insurgency in Iraq, not coalition troops.

Al-Masri is believed to have succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who died in a U.S. airstrike north of Baghdad in June.

In the message, the speaker also called for explosives experts and nuclear scientists to join his group's holy war against the West.

I read this as an act of desperation. Al Qaeda is losing, and losing badly. They know it even if some of our own politicians don't.

War | Gaius Thursday, 28 September , 2006

By JVP, Thursday, 28 September , 2006 @ 11:38 am

Al Qaeda is fighting for control in some areas of Iraq where it had dominated post US invasion. The lawlessness in these areas has created a free for all, where Iraqi groups (even those who are anti-American) are fighting with Al Qaeda for control:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2355331,00.html

This is all well and good, and I’m all for more dead al Qaeda. But as far as the United States “winning” in Iraq, we are destined to lose until this trend can be reversed:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2497076&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
By Former Republican, Thursday, 28 September , 2006 @ 8:09 pm

Four thousand fatalities means Al Qaeda is losing badly? You are dreaming. The US has had about 2,700 fatalities. Does that mean we’re losing, though maybe not “badly”?

Fatalities don’t usually decide who wins a war. Other factors are usually more important. The Soviet Union lost 20 million people and still beat the Germans. The Vietnamese lost vastly more people than we did and still won the war. To win, you have to be serious about winning. The Bush Administration isn’t winning in Iraq or Afghanistan, because it isn’t serious about winning. If it were, it would have raised taxes, not lowered them; and would have raised more military manpower, perhaps through a draft, perhaps through other means.

Bush has the stench of a loser. He looks like going down as the first US president in history to lose two wars.
By Gaius, Thursday, 28 September , 2006 @ 8:26 pm

Ok- so you are in favor of all out war? THAT is the option you force by your anti-administration antics. Ready for that?
By Quilly Mammoth, Thursday, 28 September , 2006 @ 9:53 pm

Former Republican…what a load of bull.

First, the Soviet Union lost 10,700,000 military deaths to a population of 168,500,000 whereas Germany lost 5,500,000 out of a population of 69,300,000.

Who lost a greater percentage of available fighters? That is a big reason there are no slaves in Alabama today, as well.

We won the fighting in Vietnam but lost the War. Something that even they will admit. Which is a reason so many swore we would never do it again…though we are.

Which brings us to your final point. In Vietnam we increased taxes and increased the draft. We used overwhelming military power and still…STILL…we lost. Because we failed to win the hearts and minds of not only the enemy but of the American People.

If we lose in Iraq, which imo will mean as increae in jihadi actios world wide, it will be because of people like you and Battiste. We need fewer troops in Iraq, not more. We need to protect the Iraq border while the Iraquis clean up the mess. That will win the war, not looking even more like an occupying power. Which is the trick in the Civil Affairs battle plan.
By Former Republican, Friday, 29 September , 2006 @ 7:31 am

Gaius, Bush looks like losing two wars with his present policies. Do you want to “stay the course” on that? One option is to escalate. The other is to retreat - “cut and run” if you like. Sometimes retreat is the right option, sometimes it isn’t. Nobody seriously criticizes Reagan for cutting and running in Lebanon, for example. If we continue with Bush’s policies, it looks to me like we are going to get the worst combination of outcomes. Of course, I could be wrong. But right now the way to bet is that Bush will lead us to defeat in two wars becuse he doesn’t have the political courage to do what it takes to win.

Quilly Mammoth, we need fewer troops in Iraq? I suggest to you that other things being anywhere near equal, the more troops you have the better. Even if you don’t use the extra troops, their mere existence gives you options you don’t otherwise have. Suppose there’s problem in Saudi Arabia or Somalia or you name it? And I am pretty sure our generals in Iraq (and Afghanistan — rmember Afghanistan?) would be delighted to get additional troops. The theory that fewer troops are better is just spin, designed to defend the Administration’s political cowardice about raising more troops.

Historical precedent suggests an Iraq insurgency could be quelled with enough troops. Britain poured lots of troops into Iraq after World War I. If we mobilized, we could put a million troops into Iraq, which would almost certainly crush the insurgency for a generation. A million troops is easily within our capability, though it might take a few years. You, like the Bush Administration, are not serious about war. If you want to win, make a serious effort. If you don’t, get out to mimimize your losses.

Final point: right now the American people aer getting more and more unhappy with the Iraq war. That’s a fact. To win a war, you need to maintain home-front morale. Maybe we will lose the Iraq war on the home front. So what? We will still have lost the war. You are not going to change home front opinion at this point just with talk. You need changed policies or new developments in the world. It may already be too late.
By Witchdoctor, Monday, 2 October , 2006 @ 1:06 pm

Former Republican…How much time in service do you have? Sounds like zero from your theories on winning a war.