“What’s taken place in Anbar is almost breathtaking,” he said. “In the last several months, tribes that turned a blind eye to what al Qaeda was doing in that province are now opposing al Qaeda very vigorously. And the level of violence in Anbar has plummeted, although there clearly is still work to be done.”
Will Matt’s friends in SF please organize a suicide watch in case events continue to unfold favorably?
No, not people, just Matt and some of his buddies.
Do you think he is sitting in SF hoping to be proven wrong and Bush and his buddies proven right? I think not.
"I was pretty certain this surge would be a bust before it started, me and about 90% of the rest of the country…am I delighted at each problem? only in so much as it hastens a shift in policy. " MattinSF 4/10/07
this has been predicted by those in the know from the beginning - Iraq is essentially a secular society, and the extremeism of AQ will not be welcome there in the long run - - this is further evidence that the US can leave Iraq as it is unlikely the AQ will become a dominant force there.
This will be perceived as very good news by Matt and other’s who felt the Bush Admin. predictions of Iraq becoming a AQ stronghold were unfounded.
The document you link to is completely at odds with everything you have ever posted here. Is this what you actually believe:
“The next mistake was underestimating American leadership. Al Qaeda assumed that the posture of the Clinton Administration (specifically, treating terrorism as a law-enforcement issue) would continue. Instead, the Bush Administration went after al Qaeda’s host (the Taliban regime Afghanistan), then proceeded to go after another regime that sponsored terrorism (Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq – as indicated by documents recovered after the liberation of Iraq in 2003). Then, when the media firestorms hit, rather than fold as the Clinton Administration did after the CNN images were shown in 1993, the Bush Administration stayed the course. This eventually unnerved al Qaeda, and led to its third, and most fatal, mistake.”
I asked for your posts predicting the destruction of AQ in Iraq. I am guessing you have come up empty.
Art you are one funny dude. The very first sentence of that article says we are arming former Sadam loyalists to fight the Al Qaeda insurgents.
Sooooooooooo 3,500 US deaths later and probably 100,000 Iraqi civilian dead, we are back to where we were pre-invasion…secular Baathists trying to keep out the fundamentalists.
Explain to me again then why our 3500 troops died??? why we invaded Iraq???
No, not people, just Matt and some of his buddies.
Do you think he is sitting in SF hoping to be proven wrong and Bush and his buddies proven right? I think not.
"I was pretty certain this surge would be a bust before it started, me and about 90% of the rest of the country…am I delighted at each problem? only in so much as it hastens a shift in policy. " MattinSF 4/10/07
He can correct me if I am mistaken.
Art we both know that the troop surge has nothing to do with what is happening in Anbar province…because the troop surge is focused on Baghdad.
But you’re claiming this as a success are you not? the rearming of Saddams Baathists to fight Al Qaeda…which is what they were doing before we invaded.
Some would see this as the ultimate symbol of our bankrupt Iraq policy and this failed war. 3500 Americans are dead. They died to overthrow Saddam and the Baathists, and now here we are rearming those very Baathists and taking their side in a civil war.
“which is what they were doing before we invaded.”
Saddam was fighting AQ before we invaded? I would ask for a link, but I know you just made it up and won’t provide one, so I won’t bother.
The whole definition of success in Iraq is getting the country to have a representative government and become an ally in the war on terror. Stepping up to fight AQ is success by definition. Sorry if you don’t like Sunnis doing this, but Iraqi Sunnis are the ones who live there, so they are going to have to do.
By most accounts on this forum, there wasn’t/isn’t any AQ in Iraq.
So, are you saying that we’re not only fighting the AQ over there rather than here, buy more importantly, someone else is fighting them over there? Hmmmm.
By most accounts on this forum, there wasn’t/isn’t any AQ in Iraq.
Dude where have you been and what the heck are you talking about?? I think even those on your side would admit there is AQ inside Iraq. I assume you are too lazy to research yourself so here is a link to a lot of info on AQ in Iraq. http://billroggio.com/
“which is what they were doing before we invaded.”
Saddam was fighting AQ before we invaded? I would ask for a link, but I know you just made it up and won’t provide one, so I won’t bother.
The whole definition of success in Iraq is getting the country to have a representative government and become an ally in the war on terror. Stepping up to fight AQ is success by definition. Sorry if you don’t like Sunnis doing this, but Iraqi Sunnis are the ones who live there, so they are going to have to do.
Put down the sharp objects and slowly back away.
Saddam was fighting anyone and everyone who threatened his power and that long list included Islamic extremists.