April 28, 2007

US Raids Capture AQI Terrorists, Iranian Weapons

A day after the Pentagon announced the capture of al-Qaeda mastermind Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, US forces in Iraq captured a number of AQI terrorists in a series of raids. They also found and detonated a truck bomb and discovered a cache of Iranian arms south of Baghdad:

U.S. forces detained 17 suspected insurgents in raids targeting al-Qaida in Iraq on Saturday, the military said, a day after the Pentagon announced the capture of one of the terror network's most senior and experienced operatives.

Elsewhere, U.S. fighter jets destroyed a truck bomb discovered in Anbar province, and an American raid south of Baghdad netted insurgent weapons apparently imported from neighboring Iran, the military said Saturday. ...

The U.S. military in Baghdad said Saturday's raids targeting suspected al-Qaida in Iraq insurgents netted four people in Mosul; six near Karmah, 50 miles west of Baghdad; two near the Syrian border; two in the Iraqi capital; and three near Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad. The statement linked some to al-Qaida in Iraq, including one who allegedly served as an intelligence officer. ...

In Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles south of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi forces detained eight suspected insurgents and confiscated three caches of weapons during a raid on an apartment complex on April 22, including mortars, rockets and ammunition. The weapons appeared to be new and "were stamped with recent dates and Iranian markings," the military said.

In other news, the Danish military will send almost 500 troops to Basra to bolster the British contingent. It seems that ever since Britain and Denmark announced their intention to withdraw, the security situation has deteriorated. Troops from both countries now come under fire from the Shi'ite militias vying for power.

This is what happens when abandoning an area with a weak security apparatus in place. Now that the Brits and Danes have given the people of Basra a drop-dead date for their withdrawal, they have set in motion a fight for power that will only amplify as the withdrawal date approaches. Instead of throwing in with the central government, the flight of the Coalition has convinced Iraqis in that area that they have to find the strongest warlord for protection.

We can expect this across the country if the US withdraws precipitately from Iraq. A pullout will embolden the violent and frighten the law-abiding, and the end result will be a completely failed state. Regardless of whether one supported the invasion or not, it is obviously not in the American interest to leave behind a collapsed Iraq where the boldest and most vicious terrorists rise to power in fiefdoms small and large.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (17)

Posted by Terry Gain [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 10:02 AM

Opponents of the war (i.e. those who wish to surrender) understand that announcing a date for withdrawal sends a clear message to the enemy: don't give up, we are leaving.

Opponents of the war want America to lose. This is precisely why they continue to demand deadlines for withdrawal.

Those who want to win, and at the least cost, understand that you can send only one message to the enemy: "we are not leaving until we win".

The war in Iraq is being fought on two fronts- at home and over there. Recently there has been more success in Iraq than at home.

In order to rally suppport for victory Dick Cheney should step down and be replaced by Fred Thompson, whose only task as Vice President will be to counter the MSM pro-surrender filtering of war news and speak directly to the American public about the progress being made and the consequences of even discussing withdrawal dates.

And he should emphasize what al Qaeda will do if we concede Iraq to them. In addition to attacking the fledgling democracy in Iraq and establishing a safe haven there, al Qaeda will come streaming back into Afghanistan and take up their sport of killing Americans.

Those demanding withdrawal from Iraq should be demanding immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan- before and not after more American soldiers die for what will become another lost cause.

Nobody ever won anything by demonstrating their weak underbelly.

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 10:12 AM

All this deadline talk, about the US leaving in 6 months, or 8 months, also works against these terrorist captures. The informants (e.g. brothers-in-law, old friends, or cousins of al-Qaeda members) that tip us off about this particular al-Qaeda activity may have been cultivated and reassured over a whole year's time to do what they did. What are the Iraqi informants that we're cultivating today supposed to think? Nobody will to be around to extract them and save them if they're found out.

Posted by SoldiersMom [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 10:18 AM

Terry, I agree 100%. Hope someone from the WH reads this blog. We need a Churchillian speaker to counter the surrender party propaganda and their mouthpiece, the MSM.

Posted by NahnCee [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 10:58 AM

Instead of throwing in with the central government, the flight of the Coalition has convinced Iraqis in that area that they have to find the strongest warlord for protection.

Isn't this a "cultural thing"? And how dare we presume to tell them that seeking the protection of a warlord is an inferior system to electing representatives.

If we (or the Brits) *do* stay, then aren't we merely the "strongest warlord", which means - still - that they're doing absolutely nothing to lift themselves up and out of their centuries-old "cultural thing"?

At what point do we declare the Iraqi's to be adults and responsible for their own behavior? Never mind "victory" or "losing the war" -- if they want to be stupid and keep on doing the warlord thing for ever and ever, then increasingly I think they should be allowed to do that.

Posted by Courtneyme109 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 12:59 PM

Reckon all this sweet intell is coming from the captured and defecting Revo guards from the Islamic Republic. Like the AQ cell just busted in Saudi?

Posted by conservative democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 2:07 PM

Nahncee, the neo-cons never want to leave Iraq. It'll always be,"we can't leave yet, the Iraqis aren't ready to take over THEIR COUNTRY.Arab countries have always been ruled by strongmen. Jordan isn't a democracy, Egypt sure the hell isn't, Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. But somehow Bush thinks "democracy" will bloom in Iraq. Maliki won't compromise with the Sunni's, can't say I blame him after being terrorized for 30 years by the Sunni Baathist.The Sunnis won't be happy until they RULE Iraq again. They think its their right. The Kurds are basically independent, and have ample oil wealth. They won't sign on to the oil sharing law because the Sunnis tormented and massacred them for 30 years. Even Petraeus says we need a political solution. He'd better talk to Maliki. The Iraqi Parliment wants to take off two months this summer. That means nothing will get done politically. 55 people died in a car bomb in Karbala today, think that will stop anytime soon? The Shia majority would be happy to ethnically cleanse the Sunni population, who could blame them, only problem is the Sunni countries in the region won't let it happen. Do people actually believe if we just stay longer good things will happen. Captain, go read your friend Rick Morans blog from yesterday. Calling dems that want to re-deploy "defeatists" isn't going to improve conditions on the ground in Iraq. Unless Maliki works out a political solution, 160,000 troops will solve nothing. Bush has lost Iraq and more importantly, he's lost this country too. Only the kool-aid drinkers march in lockstep with that bumbler.If Maliki works out the political agreement, I'll change my outlook. I give him maybe one chance in ten.

Posted by onlineanalyst [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 2:27 PM

According to Carol, Ma and Pa Kettle have their fingers on the pulse of the American voter as they determine policy on the basis of ever-shifting polls... instead of attending assessment meetings by Gen. Petraeus or actually hearing with accuracy the points he made.

Now I'm not one to accept polls with more than a grain of salf even though I participated in one earlier in the week conducted by Quinnipiac (sp?)

Nevertheless, Cliff May had a roundup on April 27 from a variety of poll sources. Ma and Pa Kettle had better clean their glasses and apply some Q-tips® to their wax-hardened ears:

To wit:
Some interesting polling results in recent days. For example:

According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose “denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq,” and opposition is up from 58% in February. (3/23-25, 2007).

A Bloomberg poll reveals 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007).

A recent Public Opinion Strategies (POS) poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%); (3/25-27, 2007).
POS found also that a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).

A separate POS poll finds 57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and “the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.” And 59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America’s reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (35%); (2/5-7, 2007).

A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll show 69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (3/27-28, 2007).

According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007). That same poll found a plurality of adults (45%) believe a terrorist attack against the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the “country remains unstable”

Should a date for withdrawal be set, 70% of American believe it is likely that “insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq” starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats. (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007).

An LA Times/Bloomberg polls reveals that 50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq “hurts” the troops, while only 27% believe it “helps” the troops (4/5-9, 2007).

Posted by onlineanalyst [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 3:54 PM

CD sez: "Even Petraeust says we need a political solution".

Uh, no. Petraeus did not set the situation of quelling insurgency in Iraq as an either-or proposition He sees the miliary component working in tandem with the political. Security is necessary for the political to flourish.

Take his whole remark in context, not through a misleading partial quotation.

"The situation in Iraq is, in sum, exceedingly complex and very tough. Success will take continued commitment, perseverance and sacrifice, all to make possible an opportunity for the all-important Iraqi political actions that are the key to long-term solutions to Iraq's many problems. Because we are operating in new areas and challenging elements in those areas, this effort may get harder before it gets easier.

"Success, in the end, will depend on Iraqi actions. As I noted during my confirmation hearing, military action is necessary but not sufficient. We can provide the Iraqis an opportunity, but they will have to exploit it."

The whole transcript of his remarks to Congress are linked below, including follow-up questions for clarification:

Examine the primary document before relying on the filtered media version. (Obviously Nancy and Harry are counting on the intellectually lazy not to do so. Then again, Nancy wasn't present, and Harry has a "denial" problem.)

Furthermore, to address the phony civil war argument, Michael Novak observes in part:

"Al Qaeda members are virtually all Sunnis, from foreign countries, and they care not a whit either for Iraqi Shiites or Iraqi Sunnis. Their strategy for 2006 was to commit horrible atrocities against Iraqi Shiites, so that the hotheads among them would unleash death squads against the Sunnis in retaliation. Then the Sunnis would retaliate against the Shiites. This was not real civil war. It was a contrived and phony ploy to bait each side into fighting the other, while the foreigners waited to pick up the spoils.

"One has to remember that the foreigners who make up both al Qaeda and nearly all the (self-immolating) bombers are motivated by politics, not by faith in Islam. They have no hesitation about bombing mosques, murdering imams, or destroying hundreds of worshipers. They regard anyone who does not join their war of terror, even if they are Muslims, as infidels worthy of death. They will use any means necessary to keep their toehold in Iraq and to work to eventually take over Iraq for their own political purposes.

"This is not civil war in Iraq; it is a limited, strategic, and tactical ploy whereby foreigners try desperately to inflame Iraqis against one another. The aim of these foreigners is to bring about such a cataclysm of murder and insecurity and fear that their tiny, tiny minority can then capture total power — just as the small minority of Bolsheviks did in the early rise of the Soviet Empire; just as the tiny bands of ruthless black shirts and brown shirts under Mussolini and Hitler spread social paralysis to launch the rise of Fascism. Mayhem requires only a ruthless few."

The rest of the story is here: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTVmNmQ4ZTJhNzAyYmI3ZjM0YmUwMzE2NWIzNjA5ZWI=

In spite of their sectarian differences, Sunni and Shia had lived side by side, often intermarrying, with relative harmony before outside instigators-- Saddam or Al Qaeda-- stirred the hornest's nest for their own power grab.

There is a message to be gleaned here about why precipitate or announced withdrawals play right into the hands of Al Qaeda.

Posted by Terry Gain [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 5:07 PM

"Nahncee, the neo-cons never want to leave Iraq."

Patriotic Americans, who believe the national interest transcends partisan politics, want to leave Iraq the minute we have triumphed over al Qaeda and not a moment before.

I understand you're liberal cd but 4 years is not "never", although I'm sure it is to you.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 5:11 PM

RE: conservative democrat (April 28, 2007 02:07 PM)
Nahncee, the neo-cons never want to leave Iraq...

Thanks for starting with that statement so I know not to read any further (once again). Everyone wants to leave... at the appropriate time, but please continue trying to disown the defeat the Democrats continue pressing to create.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 5:16 PM


Beat me by that -->| |<-- much.

Posted by Lightwave [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 5:37 PM

Anyone care to guess what the real problem is with this country right now? Guess what the headlines are on the MSM sites today.

Is it how we captured the mastermind behind Britain's 7/7 attacks? Is it how we busted dozens of AQ in Iraq boys in daring raids? Is it how the Danes are sending more troops into Basra and how timetables for withdrawal only make things worse in Iraq?

No. It's only bad news, a suicide bombing in Karbala and the bombing in Pakistan yesterday. You won't find any of these other positive stories in any of the other MSM sites.

Think about that, and think about why the American people are unhappy with this war, and why 3,000 troops are "too high a price to be paid for Iraq."

Posted by Salamantis [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 5:46 PM

Yahoo has pulled a bait and swich on your "captured a number of AQI terrorists" link. It now goes to a Kim Gamel story titled:

U.S. announces 9 troop deaths in Iraq

Posted by Courtneyme109 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 6:32 PM

Conservative Democrat, LOL! How much longer do you reckon that 'New Deal' Democrat occupation of Germany, Japan and SoKo will continue? If you're brave enough to look at Iraq in one of two lights things will be much clearer.

1st, the neo cons hoped to establish a tolerant, egalitarian society in Iraq - with a free, uncensored press, open, transparent elections and a national treasury under public scrutiny. Before you say it can't be done - remember Japan had the brutal code of Bushido about as long as Islam has had the sunni shia schism. Today Japan has more in common with Israel than say any despotic regime in the ME.

2nd, Iraq may not be the end all be all. In fact, the case could be made that Iran has been the prize all along - if that's true than Iraq appears quite differently. Let's review:

Iraq is now a giant sucking killing machine for wanna be Jihadis, Syrian and Iranian proxies. Iran has wasted over a billion dollars funding intolerant doofuss' like the Mahdi Army, the Badr Army Corps, Al Dawa - in fact nearly any group - sunni, shia and B'athist. Iran has absolutely nothing to show for it - no caliphate or theocracy anywhere in Iraq - and no Iranian leaning super shia majority in the gov. Talk about a quagmire!
Iran's pop is nearly 81% under the age of 35 y.o. Riots racked the Islamic Republic last month with teachers and civil workers over low pay. slow pay and no pay. Even Russia has ceased building stuff in the IR for lack of payment.

The one thing the mullahs cannot tolerate is a tolerant, egalitarian society in Iraq with a free, uncensored press and open transparent elections. It would be like kryptonite to them. Since Iran and Syria and Al Qaeda want America to leave so bad - perhaps we should talk about staying for a long, long time.

Also don't forget - the neo cons led by Dr Rice stated America was looking at a generational committment - 2 days before the statue in Al Firdos square fell.

Posted by Terry Gain [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 7:05 PM

This neocon has two questions for NahnCee, alleged conservative democrat, ck , monkei and muirgeo. Sorry , if I left out any prominent oldosocs.

1. When do you oldosocs want American soldiers to leave Iraq?

2. Do you want American soldiers withdrawn from Afstan as well and, if so, when?

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 9:54 PM


Yesterday's British newspapers had more information on the capture of Abd al-Hadi. Among other things, al-Hadi is credited with planning the London subway bombings of two summers ago. From the London Times:

The al-Qaeda leader who is thought to have devised the plan for the July 7 suicide bombings in London and an array of terrorist plots against Britain has been captured by the Americans.

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, a former major in Saddam Hussein’s army, was apprehended as he tried to enter Iraq from Iran and was transferred this week to the “high-value detainee programme” at Guantanamo Bay.

Abd al-Hadi was taken into CIA custody last year, it emerged from US intelligence sources yesterday, in a move which suggests that he was interrogated for months in a “ghost prison” before being transferred to the internment camp in Cuba.

So al-Hadi, a former Iraqi soldier who became a top al Qaeda operative in Afghanistan and later supervised that organization's operations in Iraq was caught re-entering that country from Iran: three entities that, we are told, cannot possibly have anything to do with one another. (Powerline)

The facts are stacked up to the sky; Democrats and the MSM are completely 100% invested in an American defeat; all for pure calculated political gain. Scumbags is simply not a powerful enough term for these monsters. These people have no conscience; no remorse; no guilt; no shame...

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 29, 2007 7:22 AM

The Weekly Standard has printed excerpts of General Petraeus's Pentagon briefing for the benefit of those members of Congress who were "too busy" to attend. Among the highlights is this morsel:

We do definitely see links to the greater al Qaeda network. . . . There is no question but that there is a network that supports the movement of foreign fighters through Syria into Iraq. . . . The Iranian involvement has really become much clearer to us and brought into much more focus during the interrogation of the members--the heads of the Qazali network and some of the key members of that network that have been in detention now for a month or more. This is the head of the secret cell network, the extremist secret cells. They were provided substantial funding, training on Iranian soil, advanced explosive munitions and technologies, as well as run-of-the-mill arms and ammunition, in some cases advice, and in some cases even a degree of direction.

Here is a link to the entire briefing. Are there any trolls interested in reading the actual facts?