Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Al Qaeda is a very minor player in the Iraq insurgency, something like 10%.
You are right. Most of the 'insurgents' are Iraqis who were hopeful at the start, then turned against us when they saw our true intentions, ie, billion dollar oasis, while you go without clean water or electricity, get rounded up and imprisoned or shot. Many are former police and military who saw their jobs summarily disappear by the genius Paul Bremmer (gold star from Bush - way to go Bremmie!)
Al Qaeda did establish a presence in the power vaccuum provided by our invasion, but the larger threats are the Shia Sadr army and the disenfranchised Sunni militias we armed to combat the Al Qaeda Iraqi presence.
By contrast, I would be gravely concerned about the Al Qaeda resurgence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. According to U.S. recent National Intelligence Estimates they have revitalized their internal structure and nurtured Western recruits from this safe haven.
Al Qaeda did establish a presence in the power vaccuum provided by our invasion, but the larger threats are the Shia Sadr army and the disenfranchised Sunni militias we armed to combat the Al Qaeda Iraqi presence.
By contrast, I would be gravely concerned about the Al Qaeda resurgence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. According to U.S. recent National Intelligence Estimates they have revitalized their internal structure and nurtured Western recruits from this safe haven.
The Shia are a bigger threat than Saddam ever was, because they are strict Islamic Fundamentalist, and even Saddam knew that they needed to be controlled. Saddam could basicly be bought off, but Bush in his infinite wisdom, decided to remove him, so he could play 'commander-in-chief'.
The Shia are a bigger threat than Saddam ever was, because they are strict Islamic Fundamentalist, and even Saddam knew that they needed to be controlled. Saddam could basicly be bought off, but Bush in his infinite wisdom, decided to remove him, so he could play 'commander-in-chief'.
I just love the use of language in this thread topic header.
" Al Qaeda no longer has substantial control of any area of Iraq." As though Al Qaeda ever had substantial control over any area in Iraq. Might as well have titled it, Saddam no longer has control over his nuclear weapons or Russia no longer has control over Alaska or Hugo Chavez no longer has substantial control over Jupiter.
Anbar Province was controlled by Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Funny how people seem to dismiss the obvious thing here...
We are fighting Al Qaeda IN Iraq....the same group that attacked the USA on 9/11.
Yet somehow this is wrong.
Some seem to miss the obvious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.